Genital Mutilation

[woody54]

Every westerner is horrified to know how women in Central Africa suffer routine genital mutilation, not for any religeous purpose, but because men have decided that is the expected norm.
Too bad that so many suffer serious infections or even death from blood poisoning because Grannies razor blade hadn't been used since last time.

So why is it in this 'enlightened' age that male mutilation is so common as to be treated as 'normal'. From a personal choice point of view, there ain't none; its long gone before you realised you had it.

What gives someone the right to inflict this on their young because of their own misguided views. To blame it on religion is a crock. If you believe in a God that didn't want that little bit extra,
then surely he wouldn't have added it in the original plans.

So it is down to men doing to it men, why???

 

[Pyper]

Female genital mutilation is quite different from circumcision for several reasons:

Traditionally, circumcision is meant to enhance to sexual power of the male. FGM is meant to remove the sexual power of the female by eliminating her ability to experience sexual pleasure. It is also meant to enhance to sexual power of her husband by removing the competing male-like organ (the clitoris) and making it impossible or too painful to have sex with anyone else. Circumcision is meant to enhance, FGM to abuse.

FGM is also usually performed on girls over the age of seven. The trauma lasts for a lifetime. It is arguable that since circumcision is performed on newborn males, they are not traumatized because they do not remember it.

FGM is an extremely dangerous procedure (as you mentioned) with life long health consequences that very often lead to death. Circumcision has never been proven to have any ill effects. In fact, circumcised males are significantly less likely to develop penile cancer because smegma (the substance that collects under the foreskin of an uncircumcised male) has been linked to developing cancer.

Circumcision, like FGM, is simply tradition. At it's strict definition, it is mutilation. But it is mutilation with the intent and the outcome of helping the male it is performed on.

And girls like it better.

 

[lickerish]

If I ever had a boy, I wouldn't circumsize.. IMO it's a ridiculous act. If it's a cleanliness factor, just teach the young man how to clean it properly.

That's like removing the clit hood from a woman, what's the point?

 

[Thin Man]

Pyper

Excuse me, but what part of taking a warm moist membrane and drying it up enhances a mans sexual pleasure?

 

[Angel]

If I ever had a boy, I wouldn't circumsize.. IMO it's a ridiculous act. If it's a cleanliness factor, just teach the young man how to clean it properly.

That's like removing the clit hood from a woman, what's the point?

Exactly.

 

[Pyper]

Re: Pyper

Excuse me, but what part of taking a warm moist membrane and drying it up enhances a mans sexual pleasure?

I'm not sure what you're talking about?

Oh, okay, I think I get it. About the FGM, it is certainly not my view that this practice enhances anyone's sexual pleasure. I'm simply stating that this is the cultural justification behind it. There are many other culture-bound excuses for this practice, such as it makes birthing easier, a baby will die if it touches a woman's clitoris, and that if the clitoris is not removed it will grow to the size of a penis. All of these are blatantly false, but are some reasons people give to why they practice FGM.

 

[woody54]

Re: Re: Pyper

I'm not sure what you're talking about?

I'm simply stating that this is the cultural justification behind it. There are many other culture-bound excuses for this practice,

So you agree there is no valid medical reason for this then it falls to the religeous nutcases to promote this travisty on men

 

[k_girl23]

This is a topic that came up in one of my classes last week. Personally if I have a boy I won't have him circumsized. I think that it's possible to teach the boy how to clean to prevent diseases and when I hear stories from moms who had it done to their sons and saw them strap the newborn down to the table and the kid is screaming I think why would I want the first while of my child's life to be that painful. That's just my own opinion though and I know people that have had son's circumsized and some who haven't and have nothing against anyone.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Pyper

 

[Guest]

 

[zipman]

Pyper - I disagree with the reasons you list for FGM. I don't think it enhances the males sexual power. I think it is only to remove the pleasure from the sex act for women to keep them faithful (a woman who does not enjoy sex as much is less likely to seek it from other men).


Woody - The religious reason for cirucmcision has nothing to do with health, but it is considered to be "making a covenant with God." The religious reasoning behind why God put it there if it is going to be removed has been debated, but most religious Jews think it is to signify that "God purposefully left some tasks incomplete to leave room for people to complete the task." The world is imperfect and man is expected to improve it.

Personally, while some or most health reasons could be overcome through teaching proper cleaning, I am very happy that I had it done. It happens either right after birth for non-Jews or 8 days after birth for Jews, so the trauma is never remembered. I know someone who had to do it when he was 18 and it was a nightmare for him for weeks.

 

[woody54]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pyper

There is valid medical reasons. My Grandfather had to be circumsized at age 60 for medical reasons. He was a clean man who bathed daily, but some how it got tight and infected or something.

He pleaded with me to circumsize my boys saying he wished it had been done to him at a younger age.

I'm sorry for him but he had a disease. To circumcise a population for this reason has no justification.

Womens breasts are a much greater threat medically.
Why , culturally, is it acceptable to keep them.

 

[ksmybuttons]

Circumcision is no longer paid for by medical insurances. It is considered unnecessary by the American Academy of Pediatrics. There are benefits and there are risks. Risk, benefit analysis.

I didn't get my son cut. If he wants to at a later date, he can make the decision to do it. You can take it off, but you can't put it back on.

Most other countries do not do it.

And pyper, even though my husband is cut, I prefer a foreskin. More to play with.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pyper

 

[woody54]

Woody - The religious reason for cirucmcision has nothing to do with health, but it is considered to be "making a covenant with God."

This is what I was getting at. The procedure is promoted by religeous nutcases with no valid justification except for their own crazy ideas.

The cruelty is they inflict it on their young before the child has any say and it is hardly reversible.

 

[lickerish]

You guys, I don't think Pyper was saying FGM enhances males sexual power. I think she was meaning that circumcision (removing the foreskin) enhances the males sexual power.

She said "FGM is meant to remove the sexual power of the female by eliminating her ability to experience sexual pleasure."

No?

 

[woody54]

I had a hard time decided with each boy whether or not to circumsize them. With my first, I decided for it. Luckily the doctor used a local to do it.l

With my second, he was 1 week old, and again they used a local.

Oh, thats right , I forgot.
Its widely promoted in the US by the medical profession because it boosts the income stream quite nicely. Still not a valid reason for the child.

 

[Guest]

 

[woody54]

Circumcision is no longer paid for by medical insurances. It is considered unnecessary by the American Academy of Pediatrics. There are benefits and there are risks. Risk, benefit analysis.

I didn't get my son cut. If he wants to at a later date, he can make the decision to do it. You can take it off, but you can't put it back on.

Most other countries do not do it.

And pyper, even though my husband is cut, I prefer a foreskin. More to play with.

Yeah for you!!!

 

[woody54]

So lemme guess, You look down on me for doing it??

Well...... no not really.
I just want to understand what would motivate a parent to cut off a perfectly designed structure because others do.

 

[Diablogrl]

Circumcision is no longer paid for by medical insurances. It is considered unnecessary by the American Academy of Pediatrics. There are benefits and there are risks. Risk, benefit analysis.

I cannot believe there is something I must praise the insurance industry for, but here it is.

I prefer a man with a foreskin also.

 

[Guest]

 

[Angel]

I made the decision a long time ago that I would not have my boys cut if/when I have them.

A friend of mine's parents didn't have him cut at birth and he made the decision to have it done at the age of 16. He said it was a breeze, and if given the decision again he would do it.

Another friend decided to get it done at 25 when he was marrying a Jewish girl. (hehe) He had no problems either


I feel comfortable not forcing the decision on my future sons, and letting them choose for themselves. It's a pretty big deal to me to have a slice of skin on someone else's sexual organ removed based on the decision of someone who doesn't have to live with the results.

 

[Diablogrl]

Well, Its just something I saw as the "norm" and the pediatrition recommended it.
My Grandfathers issuse did also play some part.

I think more than half of Americans have this sentiment. We can thank mid-1900s physicians for this belief, not greedy doctors. Your grandfather's experience, EE, played a very important part in your decisionmaking. There are some benefits to circumcision and I'm not sure there is a "right" or "wrong" decision here.

 

[woody54]

and the pediatrition recommended it.

Well he did have a vested interest in his point of view. Did you expect him to disuade you from give him more money.??