Female circumcision

[lovechild27]

male circumcision has no real purpose past the fact that it is cleaner. My bf is jewish...of course he is circumsized. But past the cleanliness thing or for religious belifes...I dont think there IS a purpose to it.

My cousin DID have to much cut off by a bad doctor...poor thing bled...NO type of anesthetic is used...I think THAT is what makes male circumcision so twisted...nothing to dull the pain. I know...a baby wont remember...but hearing a two day old baby boy scream while they cut his forskin off...its highly doubtful the child feels nothing...

 

[dollface007]

though, that is their culture, that is what they believe and they've been doing it way before America was "discovered."

Be careful with these types of cultural relativity arguements. Deferring to "tradition" or culture when basic human rights are on the line is a dangerous game. That's like saying it was okay for the Nazis to kill Jews because it's what their culture demanded (to give an extreme example).

And UncleTom555, while i sympathize with you (i'm not sure i'll let my sons be circumsized if i have any), we're talking about the difference between cutting off a flap of skin at age 0 and cutting off your entire penis (which is the male equivalent to the clitoris) up to age 12.

 

[Etoile]

Don't forget that not all cultures circumcise at birth. On my trip to Turkey we learned about the circumcision ceremony that is held when a boy is about 7 or 8 years old.

 

[tendril]

male circumcision has no real purpose past the fact that it is cleaner. My bf is jewish...of course he is circumsized. But past the cleanliness thing or for religious belifes...I dont think there IS a purpose to it.

My cousin DID have to much cut off by a bad doctor...poor thing bled...NO type of anesthetic is used...I think THAT is what makes male circumcision so twisted...nothing to dull the pain. I know...a baby wont remember...but hearing a two day old baby boy scream while they cut his forskin off...its highly doubtful the child feels nothing...

I don't buy into the 'cleaniness ' thing at all.

Men shower - they wash - ALL their body. No problem.

 

[Imi]

I think in ancient times, male circumscion was a way to set apart the Jewish culture.

I think that cleanliness was a way to justify it, but I don't think it applies any more. God made us the way we were meant to be. If we opt to change it, it should be an individual decision, not one made for us.

 

[lovechild27]

I don't buy into the 'cleaniness ' thing at all.

actually...I was with two guy...both uncircumsized...who didnt clean well. Lets just say the second I got a wiff there was no sex of any kind EVER. They simply didnt take the time to clean under their forskin. I wish I could explain the smell...it was not normal or nice. It was really really disgusting. They were well kept guys too...go fig. So I am guessing they were not the only two uncircumsized men out there who dont keep things completely neat and tidy....

 

[Distortion]

I really wish I had my foreskin back, I feel so violated that a decision like that was made without asking me. Maybe it isn't as bad as with females, but I feel like I'm missing something.

 

[SexyChele]

Thank you, Etoile, for describing the various forms of female circumcision. It is also important to note that in many cases young girls are taken to hospitals and placed under anethesia. I do know this is the way it is done in Saudi Arabia. There are some countries (most of them in Africa that I can remember) that do not allow girls to go to the hospital as the country has officially outlawed it. (Egypt is one such country) It is considered the father's responsibility to excise the clitoris while the girl is held down - without beneift of anethesia.

If this procedure is sought after in the United States, it constitutes child abuse. There was a woman in Southern California who was attempting to find a doctor to perform this procedure on her two girls and she was reported to Child Services. Unfortunately, she managed to get out of the country and had the procedure sucessfully performed in France. Yes, that's correct: France.

I doubt the pictures of a Sunna circumcision or a Clitoridectomy would be all that "gross" looking. Providing it had been done as a medical procedure and not just a hacking job by a relative. Most surgical procedures are done cleanly and even an amputated limb is not that bad to look at. However, Infibulation would be a completely different story.

I am totally opposed to female genital mutilation (as I am with male circumcision), unless it is performed with the full and free consent of the person undergoing the procedure. (and NOT while they are a child!!!) About 10 years about Egypt hosted some sort of world conference for women, and I remember CNN broadcast an actual female circumcision - where the girl was about 10, no anethesia, and the father was the one performing the mutilation. The Egyptian government issued a formal statement at the time denouncing the act and stating it was no longer legal. However, people within the society there firmly believe their daughters have no value as being marriageable without it.

This is something that needs to change - and should have decades ago!

 

[SexyChele]

I think in ancient times, male circumscion was a way to set apart the Jewish culture.

I think that cleanliness was a way to justify it, but I don't think it applies any more. God made us the way we were meant to be. If we opt to change it, it should be an individual decision, not one made for us.

Exactly. Jewish circumcision sets a boy apart as a Jew, following the tradition given to Abraham. It has/had nothing to do with cleanliness. It simply marked a man in a very prominent way that he was Jewish.

In the U.S. it became the practice, under the guise of keeping men clean and to avoid cancer which has since been proven to be incorrect. In fact, it was done across the board in an effort to prevent that most horrid of person acts - - - - masturbation!! (Also proven to be incorrect.)

My SO is uncircumcized - the first man I've been with who has been. He is very concerned with hygiene. After all, any of those little buggers get under that foreskin for too long and nasty infections can set in. I wouldn't have him any other way, unless it were medically needed. I have come to greatly appreciate the "natural man."

 

[BlueSugar]

Be careful with these types of cultural relativity arguements. Deferring to "tradition" or culture when basic human rights are on the line is a dangerous game. That's like saying it was okay for the Nazis to kill Jews because it's what their culture demanded (to give an extreme example).

And UncleTom555, while i sympathize with you (i'm not sure i'll let my sons be circumsized if i have any), we're talking about the difference between cutting off a flap of skin at age 0 and cutting off your entire penis (which is the male equivalent to the clitoris) up to age 12.

Humans make up human rights. To a people that firmly believe in this ritual because it makes them Man so their tribe doesn't disown them and they die ... it is their human right to the ritual.

And then of course there are the activists and the ones firmly against it, but this usually occurs in cultures that have contact with the outside world.
Personally, I don't think it should be done (any type of mutilation)... but its like being vegan for animal rights, me not eating veal isn't going to do much. All we can do is spread awareness and help those that seek us ... not push our "human rights" upon these people like the (insert religion here) pushed upon (insert clueless people here) ...

It is nothing like saying it is ok for the Nazi to kill the Jews.

as for being more clean, check the recient studies... it was and is all bullshit.
The parents and the boy/man need learn how to wash. Yes, uncircumsized men have shmegma... its nature's protection, the circumcision started with tradition/religion and continued because some person out there saying once again something that occurred natural... was 'dirty'


HAPPY BELATED VDAY TO THE LADIES OF LIT

x12 zillion

ps READ THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES
every human should own the book.

 

[Bobmi357]

And after that, they do miss it? That seems surprising to me. I know there are cut men who attempt to reclaim their foreskins (I think by stretching), but I suspect most American men are okay with it because it's what they've always known. (Other cultures circumcise later, so there could be a conflict there.)

To answer your question, yeah some men do claim to miss it. Quite honestly I've been cut, 45yr ago and I've never missed it.

Some claim its done for cleaniness, others for health reasons, and there are even a few less than adequate studies which show that HIV infection is more prevelant in men that are uncircumsized than men that are not.

Doesn't really matter to me, by my way of thinking, it allows me greater sensitivity than an uncircumsized man. Unlike him, I have all those wonderful nerve clusters already exposed.

Not to mention its a hell of a lot easier to keep clean.

 

[pointandshoot]

Doesn't really matter to me, by my way of thinking, it allows me greater sensitivity than an uncircumsized man. Unlike him, I have all those wonderful nerve clusters already exposed.

Not to mention its a hell of a lot easier to keep clean.

Sorry to say this but you are very wrong. Uncut males are much more sensitive. Once cut the skin on the head of the penis thickens and hardens in comparison to the head of an uncut one. This causes there to be less feeling in the cut male. There have been some males who have tried with some success to get that more sensitive head like an uncut male by wearing a plastic covering over the head of their penis.

 

[solid_]

The foreskin has twelve known functions.
They are:
1 to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2 to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3 to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion thoughout life.
4 to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5 to lubricate the glans.
6 to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7 to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8 to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9 to serve as an aid to penetration.
10 to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11 to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12 to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.

http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

 

[yaspis]

I would never have a child of mine mutilated in any way, male or female. Mutiliton of this kind is horrendous violation of a human's right to a whole, non-altered body.

If foreskin, clitoris, labia minora and labia majora were something human beings didn't need (for reasons mentioned by solid and few more) we simply wouldn't have them.

Circumcision for boys isn't practised generally where I come from. Here it is done only on good (if "good" can be discussed inside this topic) reasons - religion or because of health reasons, such as a too tight foreskin, an infection underneath it etc. complications that would otherwise risk the child's sexual health.

I have seen pictures of circumcision gone bad on both men and women. I've never been so close from vomiting out of anger as I was when I saw a picture of circumcised female genitalia.

If you really wish to see these pictures - and I think you really should, just for educating yourself - go visit http://www.alltheweb.com and the picture search provided. Aside from finding good erotic material through it, the service can also bring you some revolting results. Be warned.

---

Edited for typos.

 

[SkyyAngel]

While I don't really want to get into the whole arguement I just wanted to point out one thing....

A lot of people have mentioned, "If it's there when we're born, it's there for a reason....if we didn't need it, we wouldn't be born with it...etc etc"

What about people's appendixes?? There's absolutely no known reason for having them there yet they're still just there.

 

[yaspis]

Appendix? Is that the little leftover of the tail-bone we have? English isn't my native, so I'm not sure.

If it is, I think it has something to do with balance and points of weight. Plus it may provide a place for certain nerval endings. I'm not that acquinted with neurology, so I'd like someone with more knowledge on the subject correct me if I'm wrong. Thank you.

 

[solid_]

the appendix is recognized as a highly specialized organ with a rich blood supply. This is not what we would expect from a degenerate, useless structure.

The appendix contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles. These are highly specialized structures which are a part of the immune system. The clue to the appendix’s function is found in its strategic position right where the small bowel meets the large bowel or colon. The colon is loaded with bacteria which are useful there, but which must be kept away from other areas such as the small bowel and the bloodstream.

Through the cells in these lymphoid follicles, and the antibodies they make the appendix is ‘involved in the control of which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life’.6 Like the very important thymus gland in our chest, it is likely that the appendix plays its major role in early childhood. It is also probably involved in helping the body recognize early in life that certain foodstuffs, bacterially derived substances, and even some of the body’s own gut enzymes, need to be tolerated and not seen as ‘foreign’ substances needing attack.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/357.asp

 

[yaspis]

Oh, thank you. Man, do I feel stupid for being too lazy to look it up..

 

[BlueSugar]

was said also... to help in the digestion of raw meat and fish when we were half monkey half human and all that jazz.

 

[SummerMorning]

Just adding my ten cents to the bit about circumcision and cleanliness. Total ballocks. All you have to do is take five seconds while taking a shower - not particularly difficult. Anybody can do it.

 

[tendril]

Just adding my ten cents to the bit about circumcision and cleanliness. Total ballocks. All you have to do is take five seconds while taking a shower - not particularly difficult. Anybody can do it.

My point exactly.

 

[Mr.G]

???

There is sufficient eveidence that uncut males regardless of hygiene carry an increased risk of STD and even certain cancers TO their partners than circumsized males. On top of that many modern males find erection painful as the flap doesn't stretch enough to allow the glans to emerge. I've had several friends who have required circumcision as adults because the flap was begining to tear, becoming infected and just a very painful UNNEEDED appendage. It was likely badly needed 100,000 years ago when a thorn thru ones dick meant a slow horrible death from infection but today? Both my friends who, for medical reasons HAD to have it done later in life told me they wished their parents had just made that decision when they were babies.

It's funny how a much of people can have a discussion on this issue with out addressing the fact that it is a MUSLIM tradition! Women's clits and labia are hacked off with a rusty butter knife, the minora are sewn together with goat gut and then ash is mashed into the wound to stop the bleeding. With the resulting infections and deaths caused by this barbarism it is a wonder they have ANY women left alive!

As Etoille (I think) pointed out in her paste, there are varying degrees of this "procedure". For the vast majoirty of people performing this RELIGIOUS procedure it is to ensure chastity prior to marriage or sale and fidelity after marriage because sex is for procreation ONLY. Hell how much pleasure do these women get from sex after a procedure to remove their clit? NO clit and scar tissue around the rest of vaginal opening.... Lemmie guess. I don't even want to think about what childbirt feels like to a victim of this butchery.

The scary thing is that Muslims who have moved into the western countries are now demanding to be allowed to continue this sexist, ghastly, babrbaric procedure.

my 2¢

 

[solid_]

Re: ???

There is sufficient eveidence that uncut males regardless of hygiene carry an increased risk of STD and even certain cancers TO their partners than circumsized males.

Even if it were true that women had a higher risk of picking up HPV from uncircumcised men, why should it follow that all boys should be circumcised? It could be argued with equal logic that uncut men faced a greater risk of picking up HPV from infected women and thus that the focus of prevention should be on purifying them. Dr Castellsague and his team are not blaming women for infecting men with HPV, but where else do they get it from? If the foreskin provides a nest for the virus, so does the clitoral hood and the folds of the labia in females; perhaps routine circumcision of women would reduce the incidence of HPV infection and penile cancer in men. Because western doctors regard amputation of any part of the female genitals as mutilation, however, they have no interest in exploring this intriguing therapeutic possibility, and they do not try to find associations between normal female anatomy and risk of disease. It is a different story in the Islamic cultures which practise various forms of female circumcision, where both doctors and religious leaders do indeed make similar claims about its benefits for women's health, including its effect in reducing the incidence of cancer, herpes and AIDS.



http://www.circinfo.org/cervical.html

 

[Mr.G]

John Hopkins Study May 2000

Good enough for me.

"The finding that circumcision afforded protection against HIV infection, with no infections among 50 HIV-negative circumcised men as compared to 40 infections among 137 uncircumcised men, suggests another potential biological method of HIV prevention. Previous studies among high-risk populations have shown that uncircumcised men have an increased risk of heterosexual acquisition of HIV compared to circumcised men. This is probably due to the biological characteristics of the foreskin of an uncircumcised man, which is prone to microulcerations, is associated with an increased frequency of STDs, and provides an increased surface area of epithelial tissue that is susceptible to HIV. Of interest, this association between male circumcision and decreased risk of acquisition may partially explain the relatively lower risk of female-to-male transmission in the U.S. since the vast majority of men in the U.S. are circumcised. In his accompanying editorial, Dr. Cohen suggests that "countries where HIV infection is endemic or epidemic might well consider promoting circumcision for its public health benefits."

*************************************

There is NO evidence that indictaes ANY reduction in desease transmission when women are circumcised. On the contrary...I'd put my money on a John Hopkins study. ANY medical claim made by some middle eastern religious leader whose grasp of modern medicine is from the 12th century (at best) is rather suspect.

 

[dollface007]

Mr. G,

First of all, yes, FGM originated (as far as i know) as a Muslim tradition. HOWEVER, NOT ALL MUSLIMS practice FGM. Just like not all Muslim women are required to where burkas. FGM is most prevalent in Islamic African countries. Your post takes on a very scary tone as i read it. It's almost like you're saying, this is one more reason why we should think Muslims are bad people. Please please please tell me I'm wrong.

Also, while there is SOME evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection, a LARGE part of the global association between HIV and circumcision is spurious. For instance, there is an association between ice-cream sales and homicides...both increase during the summer, but that doesn't mean that eating ice cream increases your chances of murdering someone. The countries where HIV is rampant also HAPPEN to be countries where male circumcision is not practiced (i.e., sub-saharan african countries). Underdevelopment, rampant use of prostitutes, intentional infection of others, and poor medical care/education are much stronger predictors of infection. Anyways, maybe you don't need more evidence than one study with the Johns Hopkins label, but i do.

I think the larger issue here is that encouraging circumcision to slow down the aids pandemic is like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. Increased condom use and education would be much more effective, don't you think?