Female circumcision

[solid_]

Re: 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.

the AIDS scare, which has proved as great a boon to long-time advocates of routine circumcision as it has been a godsend to haters of homosexuals. In each case the response has been the same: AIDS is such a serious disease that it demands both the resumption of mass amputation of foreskins and an end to tolerance of sexual deviants whose vile practices spread the virus. As soon as AIDS became a visible problem in the USA, existing enthusiasts for the operation immediately hailed circumcision as a protection (Fink 1986, 1990), a claim which required some gall, considering that the only country with an AIDS epidemic at that time was the very one in which the vast majority of sexually active men were already circumcised.

 

[SexyChele]

Re: John Hopkins Study May 2000

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.

Interesting. However the very best medical treatment I ever received was from a doctor in a Middle Eastern country when I was on vacation. He was able to diagnose a condition (hyper-thyroid) simply by speaking and looking at me, when my wonderful American doctors were totally clueless without this guy's recommendation. Not all medical experts in the Middle East are religious fanatics and I think it grossly unfair that you paint a picture with a rather broad brush.

On the other hand, studies from within the US - a country that has been forcibily pushing circumcision on it's male babies for more than a century - is highly suspect for me. Of course an American institution would never admit to the populace that perhaps, just perhaps, they have been feeding new parents a load of crap for over 100 years.

And while the theory (which is really all that it is) of HIV infected men is higher in those who are not circumcized, let's look at which countries they are pertaining to. Mostly those from Africa. Men from the European countries, Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America must also be included in this "study" as well.

Interesting information, but coming from a Jewish doctor from an American institution leaves lots of doubt in mind. (And that is no disrepect to those of the Jewish faith whatsoever!)

 

[Mr.G]

""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. ""

AND

""Not all medical experts in the Middle East are religious fanatics and I think it grossly unfair that you paint a picture with a rather broad brush.""

Two ENTIRELY different statements Chele. Not what I wrote but it IS what you read.

Interesting.

From another thread you must be aware of my thoughts on "medical research" modern or otherwise. Most of them don't have a friggin clue.

That said I would base much of the discussion on COMMON SENSE. A skin hood over the end of a penis is a natural breeding ground for bacteria and a refuge for any and all viruses. I agree it isn't a problem to wash it properly however within a few minutes the growth is going exponential again. There are discharges from the penis all day. Microbial growth is enveloped in a medium which gives it all the benefits of internal growth and NONE of the body's protection that comes with internal desease fighting antibodies. It is a climate controlled agar rich medium with DOUBLE the skin surface of a circumcised penis.

Common sense vs a lot of "research" from both sides of the argument. The obvious risk to a sexual partner is far greater with one than another.

Wasn't this discussion about FEMALE circumcision though?

 

[lovechild27]

In the long run...does it matter? Is your forskin or lack thereof really making a difference in your life? It seems to me all the men who have been circumsized have sex and orgasm quite well.

Maybe its because I dont have a penis...but you cant miss what you never had.

 

[BlueSugar]

In the long run...does it matter? Is your forskin or lack thereof really making a difference in your life? It seems to me all the men who have been circumsized have sex and orgasm quite well.

Maybe its because I dont have a penis...but you cant miss what you never had.

what was that Sandra Bullock movie when she goes into rehab, and there is a gay dude there and they ask him what he wishes and he says something like to be normal or straight... then later in the movie he says "foreskin... i wish i had my foreskin back, they took it without askin."

cute movie.

 

[FieldofGoldfem]

Really Interesting

....Okay, yes...that movie is halarious, and that character cracked me up! *smiles*

As for the discussion at hand...I'd just like to say that all the comments have been very thoughtful and insightful. Applause to all those who have done their homework and found out more about this particular crime against women and society.

 

[lovechild27]

ya its a good movie.

Im not all for circumsizing boys...I think the way they do it is barbaric. But no one is forcing anyone to circumsize their sons...yet many people do it freely. How do you know that sex would be any better with it back though? I mean a guy who isnt cut cant tell you because he doesnt know any better...so maybe you ended up with the long end of the stick. There are men out there who werent circumsized when they were babies and choose to do it later in life (under anesthetic of course) Its all a matter of preference...thats all. If you dont like it, no one is making you do it to your kids.

 

[sheath]

I feel as though I should post a little note here...

I have been with a man who was circumsized later in life. It was due to health reasons, mostly an infection that would not go away no matter what the doctors tried. I'm not sure what the reasons for the infection were.

His circumcision left him with VERY decreased sensitivity. There are parts of his penis, right under his head, that have no feeling whatsoever. Though he still enjoys sex, he knows the experience of full physical sensation is lacking. It was certainly a strange moment for me, when I was touching him and he explained "That is where I cannot feel anything." And he didn't.

Now, I look at his experience, at the wonderful sensation he lost...and it brings me back to the question of FGM. His procedure was done in a hospital, under sterile conditions, by a skilled physician. However, the very act of the surgery was enough to kill quite a bit of sensation. Given those circumstances...I cannot imagine what it must be like to have such a procedure done with an untutored hand and unclean conditions.

Life-threatening is obvious. What it does to her sexual pleasure must be horrific. Is a woman ever able to enjoy sex after undergoing such a procedure? At ALL?

S.

 

[BlueSugar]

I feel as though I should post a little note here...

I have been with a man who was circumsized later in life. It was due to health reasons, mostly an infection that would not go away no matter what the doctors tried. I'm not sure what the reasons for the infection were.

Life-threatening is obvious. What it does to her sexual pleasure must be horrific. Is a woman ever able to enjoy sex after undergoing such a procedure? At ALL?

S.

It was health reasons, so he is in the clear as far as barbarics go. That foreskin keeps his penis nice and sensative though... having no feelings in some place may MAY be cause of malpractice... I don't have a penis (per se), but he should be able to feel... whether it is as sensative as it was .. it will always dull when circumsized due to the protection gone and it rubbing against everything.

And well, we all know that gspot orgasms are possible... but the clit is true in purpose... it is the ONLY organ in male/female anatomy that is dedicated to sexual pleasure... ps.. it has 8,000 times more nerves/sensation then the entire region of the male's penis

 

[SexyChele]

Life-threatening is obvious. What it does to her sexual pleasure must be horrific. Is a woman ever able to enjoy sex after undergoing such a procedure? At ALL?

S.

This is the point of female circumcision. If the clitoris is completely removed, then the idea is that the female receives no pleasure from sex. She is not in any pain, per se, but she will never experience a clitoral orgasm. This insures her (supposed) fidelity to her husband. If sex is simply something she goes through for her husband's sake and to acheive children, then why go to another man?

In the instance where the clitoris is removed and the labia sewn shut, intercourse is meant to be both non-pleasurable and somewhat painful. This is another way it insures the female's fidelity to her husband. If sex with hubby is painful, then she certainly is not going to seek this out with another man.

The difference between a male and female circumcision is that a male circumcision removes a portion of skin yet allows for him to still enjoy sex. (If a man does not ejaculate there is no sperm placed inside the female, and hence, no children.) Circumcision in a female serves a single purpose: to avoid her ever feeling any pleasure from sex. That is why most people feel more strongly against female circumcision than male circumcision.

 

[Falkieri]

While it can be argued that there are health reasons for circumcision in a male (whether or not its true is very much debated), female circumcision is nothing more than mutilation. Its not circumcision at all, that's simply a term to make it sound more acceptible. Its no different than cutting off someone's hand to prevent masturbation, or removing their tongue so they can't perform oral. You're removing a part of a person's body for no reason other than the need to dominate that person in some way.

 

[horny_boi]

for a female it is so wrong ! I read an article once it had very graphic pictures aswell and i was nearly sick after seeing it, friend with me cried reading it.
it is very very wrong.

as for male's reason for to keep it clean, and for health reasons,
that is completely not true. I am not old nor as experienced as some people here, I'm also not good at debate on a forum like this.
But i know it's not true. Maybe some people can not keep it clean (there are a lot of lazy people out there who probably wouldn't clean other parts of their body properly either?) For thousands of years people have had sex, with and without circumcision, If there was an actual and obvious health risk/prevention by having it either way, it would have been spotted. but it has not happened !

 

[sheath]

For thousands of years people have had sex, with and without circumcision, If there was an actual and obvious health risk/prevention by having it either way, it would have been spotted. but it has not happened !

THAT is a very good point to add to the male circumcision argument that focuses on health reasons.

S.

 

[UncleTom555]

Sorry I've been away for a while, but nice to see some actually commented on my response. I apologize for the long post and for somewhat hijacking your topic. Just felt we couldn't talk about one and not the other.

Firstly, yes I do miss my foreskin. A LOT! I am only 22 and while I worked at my local library for 3 years, I cam across many different books. I have seen the results of male and female circumcisions. None of the pictures are pretty. The male ones are quite bloody. Ever see a picture of someone who cut the end of their finger off? It's worse than that. Seriously. I came across books that explain how to go about "restoring" your foreskin, but it only is in appearance and slight restoration of feeling.

I have been "blessed" with the opposite side of most circumcisions. My girlfriend can hardly give me a blowjob without me cringing in pain. Certain parts of my penis (mostly near where the head and shaft meet. Where my foreskin once protected) are super-sensitive. I fit into the mold of the average American male:5 minutes for sex and its over. This is caused by the practice of circumcison. I know because I HAVE been studying this topic for a few years. I have read the stories from women who had sex with both a cut and uncut male. Majority picked the uncut one over the cut one. Reason: The cut one lasted a few minutes to half an hour. The uncut one lasted hours. It is because the friction against the shaft of the penis and head of the penis is lessened by the foreskin.

It was mostly started up in America as a standard practice because of 1)religion. America the Jewish/Christian nation. 2) Dr. Spock stated it was cleaner and easier to clean. Also it would reduce Ovarian Cancer and/or Prostate Cancer as well as other diseases. However, read the newest version of Dr. Spock's books for raising your children and he takes a stand 100% AGAINST all circumcisions. Says he is sorry for making the mistake of pushing for it.

In closing, as I said before: I am totally against ALL circumcisions. FGM is a sick and horrific act against women. But, just as a point, what one does in their culture may be sick and horrific to us, but to them it may be considered normal. i.e. American males are circumcised and nobody gives a care. Go to Australia or Europe and they think it is ugly and stupid.

Sources:
www.nocirc.org
www.norm.org
Book: The Joy of Uncircumcisizing