# genital circumcision / mutilation



## Isis

I am not in an ultra-feminist group but what is distracting me now is the issue of Female Genital Mutilation in Africa and some parts of the Muslim countries in Asia and also in America.

In got shocked to know that this thing really exist when my Professor brought out the issue in our Cultural Anthropology class. She told us that this "ritual" has been in practice in the male-dominated countries in order to suppress women's sexuality and for them to be marked as "pure", "virgin", " a true woman" [since cutting the clitoris is a sign of cutting away the male part in women]. Also, it was the way on how to uphold or protect propriety, morality and marriageability.

In an article written by Shweder, he said that women uphold this action towards their bodies beacuse genital alterations improve their bodies and make them more beautiful, more feminine, more civilized and more honorable.

Why is it that a lot of countries still do the tradition? Is this a matter of "double standard" for women, when they are not given the chance to enjoy sexually when their partners must have the whole of it? Why to they have to take away the right of these women?

I am also a woman.......don't they deserve what I know I deserve?


----------



## VenusEnvy

I, too, was shocked to learn that this happened. But, as you said you were taking a "Cultural Anthropology" class, then I suppose you learned about Ethnocentrism, and Cultural Relativity. Although we may not agree with it, we must repect the differences between people. In saying that, some do not agree with male-circumcision here . . .  

There is a fine line between what WE believe are human rights, and what are simply differences in culture. Very interesting topic, Isis.


----------



## Isis

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I, too, was shocked to learn that this happened. But, as you said you were taking a "Cultural Anthropology" class, then I suppose you learned about Ethnocentrism, and Cultural Relativity. Although we may not agree with it, we must repect the differences between people. In saying that, some do not agree with male-circumcision here . . .
> 
> There is a fine line between what WE believe are human rights, and what are simply differences in culture. Very interesting topic, Isis.


 
Thanks VenusEnvy! Yes, we already tackled Ethnocetrism and Cultural Relativism and both helped me understand the topic. I am just curious about the tradition and how it goes.

Sometimes, we also dig dipper into the realm of the delineating line between rights and culture, right? Curious cats?!


----------



## abc

Isis said:
			
		

> She told us that this "ritual" has been in practice in the male-dominated countries in order to suppress women's sexuality and for them to be marked as "pure", "virgin", " a true woman" [since cutting the clitoris is a sign of cutting away the male part in women]. Also, it was the way on how to uphold or protect propriety, morality and marriageability.


 
I think this is a very cruel practice imposed upon the weaker sex.  



> Why is it that a lot of countries still do the tradition? Why to they have to take away the right of these women?


 
I suppose they have a different way of looking at "Feminine Beauty".  



> I am also a woman.......don't they deserve what I know I deserve?


 
They do!  But, do they, themselves, believe that which we believe?


----------



## sperdomo

Sorry, but I hardly think speaking out against female mutilation is ethnocentric. Cutting off a woman's clitoris is not a simple cultural difference! What about racism, slavery, torture, or the use of children as soldiers?  These are practices that exist in some cultures. Should the international community consider these as benign cultural differences? Any practice that is harmful, damaging, or severely and negatively limits an individual is fair game for criticism.


----------



## cuchuflete

sperdomo said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I hardly think speaking out against female mutilation is ethnocentric. Cutting off a woman's clitoris is not a simple cultural difference! What about racism, slavery, torture, or the use of children as soldiers? These are practices that exist in some cultures. Should the international community consider these as benign cultural differences? Any practice that is harmful, damaging, or severely and negatively limits an individual is fair game for criticism.



Bravo Sperdomo!

Where did I read theses words?  "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

The abuse of power, by nation-states or by individuals, is contrary to that phrase.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Benjy

sperdomo said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I hardly think speaking out against female mutilation is ethnocentric. Cutting off a woman's clitoris is not a simple cultural difference! What about racism, slavery, torture, or the use of children as soldiers?  These are practices that exist in some cultures. Should the international community consider these as benign cultural differences? Any practice that is harmful, damaging, or severely and negatively limits an individual is fair game for criticism.



well.. i suppose it comes down to the question which is at the heart of just about any debate (and unsuprisingly seems to pop up here regularly)..

why is your version of ethics/morals/right/wrong/damaging/harmful etc etc more valid or ultimately superior to the one that you are criticising? who lays down the law? criticise by all means.. but i don't think that international community has the right to decide if clitoral circumcision is "right" or "wrong".


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy said:
			
		

> well.. i suppose it comes down to the question which is at the heart of just about any debate (and unsuprisingly seems to pop up here regularly)..
> 
> why is your version of ethics/morals/right/wrong/damaging/harmful etc etc more valid or ultimately superior to the one that you are criticising? who lays down the law? criticise by all means.. but i don't think that international community has the right to decide if clitoral circumcision is "right" or "wrong".



and what is the 'international community'?  Is it something other than the majority viewpoint of those with the most power at a given moment?

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Artrella

Isis said:
			
		

> I am not in an ultra-feminist group but what is distracting me now is the issue of Female Genital Mutilation in Africa and some parts of the Muslim countries in Asia and also in America.
> 
> In got shocked to know that this thing really exist when my Professor brought out the issue in our Cultural Anthropology class. She told us that this "ritual" has been in practice in the male-dominated countries in order to suppress women's sexuality and for them to be marked as "pure", "virgin", " a true woman" [since cutting the clitoris is a sign of cutting away the male part in women]. Also, it was the way on how to uphold or protect propriety, morality and marriageability.
> 
> In an article written by Shweder, he said that women uphold this action towards their bodies beacuse genital alterations improve their bodies and make them more beautiful, more feminine, more civilized and more honorable.
> 
> Why is it that a lot of countries still do the tradition? Is this a matter of "double standard" for women, when they are not given the chance to enjoy sexually when their partners must have the whole of it? Why to they have to take away the right of these women?
> 
> I am also a woman.......don't they deserve what I know I deserve?





This is terrible, I've read somewhere the way this procedure is carried out.  And believe it goes beyond all the harm that this mutilation causes in the sexual life of that poor woman.  The procedure is terribly cruel and dangerous.
I respect religions and different points of view, but this is a sacrifice!! Nobody cares about the pain and suffering of these poor girls!! The pain during this mutilation is inhumane!!


----------



## abc

Benjy said:
			
		

> why is your version of ethics/morals/right/wrong/damaging/harmful etc etc more valid or ultimately superior to the one that you are criticising? who lays down the law? criticise by all means.. but i don't think that international community has the right to decide if clitoral circumcision is "right" or "wrong".


 
I think sperdomo said it quite well!  

Benjy, why do you think most of us, if not all, are against rape, sexual abuse, pædophilia...?  Imagine that you had a daughter who fell in love with a man who and whose family believed in Female Genital Mutilation...What would you think when she decided to marry this man, then later became a widow and had to have her clitoris cut off?  Also, think of the women who were *forced *to practice this tradition!


----------



## te gato

abc said:
			
		

> I think sperdomo said it quite well!
> 
> Also, think of the women who were *forced *to practice this tradition!


 
I agree that it is a disgusting practice and what abc said is right..THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. Someone has decided for them.
te gato


----------



## Cath.S.

Benjy said:
			
		

> well.. i suppose it comes down to the question which is at the heart of just about any debate (and unsuprisingly seems to pop up here regularly)..
> 
> why is your version of ethics/morals/right/wrong/damaging/harmful etc etc more valid or ultimately superior to the one that you are criticising? who lays down the law? criticise by all means.. but i don't think that international community has the right to decide if clitoral circumcision is "right" or "wrong".


Benjy, this reminds me of the topic about bullfighting, where one of the points of view is that because something is a tradition, it is respectable. 
I beg to differ utterly.

There have been some wonderful traditions in the history of mankind, and there have been same really appalling ones too. Should we have kept slavery because it was "traditional"? 

Some traditions are just bad ideas that became habits and beliefs, because man has always had that simian tendency to ape what other men did

I do agree that no outsider should "lay down the law", and then again, an outsider in nothing more, nothing less than a fellow human being and therefore is entitled to speak out, just like people can say they are against bullfighting because they empathize, even though they are not themselves bulls and don't have any in their family. 

And I can explain "wrong" - how could I call myself a human being if I could not define what "wrong" means to me? - : any action that harms the body in a lasting manner for any purpose outside self-defence can be deemed wrong, no matter what holy texts or oral tradition might say to justify it or sanctify it. When the body is not allowed to work the way its DNA meant it to, it is in my opinion a sin against very fundamental deities.   

I don't think _anything_ should be banned, I am a true believer in freedom; still, sometimes the use other people make of their freedom makes me want to be sick.

Granted - it's _my_ problem, not _theirs_...


----------



## Benjy

i can see what you're saying.. i never actually gave my opinion on what i actually thought of the practice  i just think that sometimes its hard to judge from the outside looking in. i guess the question that is the most pertinent is whether they (the women) have any say in the matter. choice being the most fundemental freedom of them all. if they don't.. well then for me thats the biggest problem, not the practice itself.

also the things you cited about slavery.. i completely agree, but each time it was a movement from within the community itself which brought about the change.. not an outsider coming in.

ps cuchu.. you're definition of the international community struck me as pretty accurate


----------



## ayed

In the name of Allah, the most Merciful, the most Gracious

I have just summed up and translated an Arabic article written by 
Dr.Mohammad Nizar al-Dogger.I preferred to touch upon both man and woman because they are of bilateral relationships with each other. This chopped numbered article may seem somewhat disorganized and I hope to be helpful and beneficial to you all.

                                                  Circumcision
 Cutting off the foreskin (male) or the upper part of FGO ”clitoris”(female)

                                         Circumcision through History
1-Archaeologically discussing, some clay bricks were founded out, dating back to the two civilizations: Babylonian and Samaritan (3500 B.C); describing the process of circumcision in details. Another clay brick was discovered in ‘Ankh amoon’s grave(2200 B.C); describing the Pharaonic circumcision , that they used to apply some anesthetic ointment on one’s foreskin before the process of circumcision and that they used to do so for a hygienic purpose.
2-Though “Circumcision” is annually celebrated by Christians and Jesus himself (peace be upon him) commanded his followers to circumcision. Yet, some of them either desert or shun away from circumcision.
3-Arabs in pre-Islam (al-Jahiliyyah--Ignorance), they used to be circumcised following their Ibraheem’s rite.
4- The prophet Muhammad (Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him) was circumcised by his grandfather, Abdu al-Muttalib, as Arab used to do so, who named him “Muhammad” and held “a circumcision banquet” on the seventh day of his birth.
5-al-Bukhari’s Hadeeth No.5439 mentions that the prophet Muhammad stated five things: circumcising, shaving pubic hair, plucking off armpit hair, cutting fingernails and cropping moustache
6-The follower Anas bin Malik(may Allah be pleased with him)narrated that the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded Attiyyah’mother”a circumciser” who would circumcise women in al-Madina al-Monawwarah(The Holy City)not to clitorectomize.That is, not to circumcise exaggeratedly.A  bit of the clitoris tip be cut off at most because it is best for woman herself and to be loved much by her husband.
7-al-Qurtubi is a famous Muslim scholar said that all Muslim scholars have concurred that Ibraheem was the first to circumcise.
8-Muslim scholars say that there is no specific time for carrying out circumcision .Consequently, circumcision is better be done during man’s birthday up to puberty .However, the best time to do so is when one is a neonate because it is less likely to feel pain and easy for him to forget that experience.
9-Dr.Mohammad Ali al-Barr says that medical researches firmly stated that circumcision is very beneficial to neonate at early childhood starting from birthday up to “40 days” at most. The more the circumcision be postponed, the more the inflammations start abundantly in-between the foreskin, the penis tip and in urinary tract. 
10-Ibn al-Qayyim a famous Muslim scholar said that circumcision is for purity, cleanness and for moderating one’s lust in that if one is of obsessive sexual desire, he behaves as if he were of beastly desire. Accordingly, circumcision does actually moderate sexual desire…you’ll notice one who is uncircumcised is always not sexually satisfied.
 11-al-Nawawi, a famous Muslim scholar, said that the skin covering man’s penis tip has to be “cut off totally” .It is good to crop a little bit of “the woman’s clitoris tip” only.
12-In 1990, Pro.Wizwell said that he was against circumcision and took part in the great efforts exerted in 1975 against carrying out circumcision .However, in the beginning of 1980s, some medical studies showed an increased rate of inflammatory cases of urinary ducts in uncircumcised children . Having meticulously investigated those published medical researches, Prof.Wizwell found out such results were contrary to what he had thought and became a circumcision supporter later on. He very recommended that each neonate be circumcised.  
Hygienic Advantages of Male Circumcision
Recent medical studies have firmly stated that the uncircumcised ones are most likely to be affected with some fatal genital diseases while those circumcised ones are less likely to be sick with such a genital disease.
 A-The circumcision prevents penis from local inflammations:
It is difficult to clean off these folds between the penis tip and foreskin. Some droplets of urine or “Smegma-- a white discharge” secreted out of the sebaceous glands of the foreskin accumulate in the folds between the penis tip and foreskin .Thus, these folds offer active environment for germs to grow up; leading both penis tip and foreskin to an acute or chronic inflammation .This inflammation may cause the uncircumcised children to have urinary duct infection.Dr.Showban’s studies stated that it is easy to clean baby’s genital organs and that circumcision prevents accumulating germs under foreskin during childhood. As for Dr.Ferguson , he said that the uncircumcised children are more likely to be affected with the inflammation of penis tip and Phemosis--, an abnormal tightness of the foreskin preventing retraction over the glans.
B-Circumcision and genital disease:
Having worked in the Arabian countries for 20 years and examined more than “30,000”women, Pro.William Backus observed and stated rareness of genital diseases, notably, genital herpes, Chlamydia, Trichomonas and Cervix Cancer due to two main reasons: littleness of adultery and carrying out male circumcision.
@Albertus stated that (1103) Americans affected with “Penial Cancer”--Penis Cancer” none of them was circumcised since childhood.
@Medical studies have stated that “Smegma--the white secretion, does stimulate “HPV” to grow up which is of cancerous effect.

                                                   FGO
 Female Genital Organ: it is an erectile organ similar to and smaller than the penis and is of no urethra. It looks like “a cockscomb”.
@Dr.Hamid al-Ghawwabi stated that the uncircumcised woman’s labia minora secrete discharges that accumulate and smell awful which could cause vaginal or urethral inflammation. As for Dr.Ravich who made a lecture at the seminar “The Cancer and Environment” which held in Düsseldorf, he had stated that the circumcised men are less likely to be affected with Penial Cancer than those uncircumcised and that women who are married to circumcised men are less likely to be affected with Uterus Cancer than those women who are married to uncircumcised.
Circumcision decreases oversensitivity in the clitoris that overgrows and sticks out up to more than “3 cm long when it is erected. Imagine how a man could contact his wife sexually while she is having an erectile organ like he do!!??Saying “female circumcision” causes female sexual impotence is groundless because impotence is caused by many reasons unless it be a Pharaonic circumcision--Clitorectomy”
In some countries, women are either clitorectomized, cut off labia minora or even labia majora some times would put them at risk. This process is totally discordant with the Islamic law. This type of circumcision is called” the Pharaonic circumcision” and has nothing to do with what the prophet Muhammad commanded his followers to do.
The rumor about Female Circumcision is baseless because complications they talk of are caused by only two things: either breaking the Islamic law or circumcising clitoris without cleansing off by inexperienced female circumcisers.  
The Islamic legal circumcision is very beneficial to people because they follow up and obey the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).Thus, both nymphomania and eroticism disappear. The circumcision, also, prevents woman’s clitoris from germinal inflammations.
It is self-evident from Islamic viewpoint that the circumcision appears on man much more than on women. In hot countries such as: Egypt, Sudan and Arabian Peninsula and others, woman is of somewhat long clitoris which increases excessively the sexual desire when it rubs her cloths. Thus, the medical view suggests that the clitoris tip be slightly chopped to modify woman’s lust. This view is accordant with Muslim scholars’ opinion who made circumcision “a compulsory religious rite” on man BUT optional on woman; confirming the prophet Muhammad’s teachings.
I would like to say that few people in Saudi Arabia still circumcise their daughters, notably, in Jazan city, in southwest region in accordance with the Islamic Law (Shari’ah al-Islamiyyah)
Sorry for this clumsy translation.
-----------------------------------------------
References :
1.Dr.Mohammad Nizar al-Dogger,”The Circumcision between Medicine& Islam” an article published on Magazine of The Civilization of Islam, 14th Ramadan , 1393.A.H
2.Dr.Abdul al-Salam al-Sukkari,”Circumcision of Male and Female”al-Dar al-Masriyyah for Publishing 1989
3.Dr.Abdul Rahman al-Qadri “The Circumcision between Medicine and Islamic Law,Ibn al-Nnafees , Damascus , 1996
4.  Schoen: New England J. Of Medicine.1990.322.
5.  Pikers W: Med .Dijest Jour.April.1977.
6.  Fink A J.Circumcision .Mountion View .California .1988.
7.  Cowdry E.V:" Cancer Cells ".london.1958.
8.  Wollberg A.L: Circumcision and Penile Cancer “Lancet .I .1932.
9.  Helberg D.et al "Penil Cancer .Brit .Med.J.1987.8.
10.  Ravich A . "Cancer of Prostate” Act.len. Internet.Cacer .V3.1952.
11.  Handley W.S “Prevention of Cacer “Lancet .1.1.1936.
 12. Dr.Hamid al-Ghawwabi “Circumcision of Girls, Flag of Islam, editions 7 & 10 , Volume 11 , 1957.
13. Prof.Wizwell, magazine “Amer .Famiy J .Physician


----------



## Silvia

Ayed, I'm impressed with your translation, thank you for your efforts. I would like you to read the following:

*What are the cultural aspects of circumcision?* 
Followers of the Jewish and Moslem faiths perform circumcision for religious reasons. Nonreligious circumcision became popular in English-speaking countries between 1920 and 1950. At this time it was thought that circumcision might help prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Circumcision never became a common practice in Asia, South America, Central America, or most of Europe. Over 80% of the males in the world are not circumcised.

*What is the purpose of the foreskin?*
The foreskin on the penis is not some cosmic error. The foreskin:
 protects the glans (top of the penis) against urine, feces, and other types of irritation 
 protects against infection or scarring of the urinary opening (although this is rare) 
 protects the sensitivity of the glans.
*What are the cons of circumcision?* 
Some of the reasons not to circumcise include:
Surgical complications
Problems that may occur are skin or bloodstream infections, bleeding, gangrene, scarring, and various surgical accidents (around 1%, while death is rare)
 Pain
The procedure causes pain. However, the doctor can use some anesthetic around the area to block some of the pain.
 Possible urinations problems 
When removed, the tip of the penis may become irritated and cause the opening of the penis to become too small. This can cause urination problems that may need to be surgically corrected.
 Probable decrease in sensitiveness
Circumcision makes the tip of the penis less sensitive, causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life.
 Sexually transmitted deseases 
Circumcised men are much more likely to suffer from sexually transmitted diseases than uncircumcised
 Castration anxiety
It can cause a syndrome known as castration anxiety.

Circumcision could be advisable in the past due to hygienic problems, but not nowadays where current water and proper hygiene are available. Of course there is a religious belief as you explained, that probably originated in hygienic purposes. I strongly believe that the body can be kept integral and without consequences if a proper hygiene is carried out.

In the US, uncut men contract penile cancer at three times the rate of circumcised men, yet the American Cancer Society officials cite *lower* penile-cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision. Thus it is not because of circumcision itself.

Also:


> The perception that foreskin is unhygienic is a myth, says George C. Denniston, M.D., president of the Seattle-based Doctors Opposing Circumcision. "Foreskin protects against disease; it doesn't cause disease. If foreskin is unhygienic, eyelids should be considered unhygienic."
> 
> The procedure is even being questioned among some non-Orthodox Jewish parents who are departing from the traditional bris -- the ceremony of circumcision that initiates a baby into a covenant with God. Instead, they turn to Jewish laws that forbid inflicting pain to any living thing.


 I may add that in the US there are consistent economic interests to keep this practice running.

Isis, forgive my slightly off-topic post, but I saw that even male circumcision was being discussed. We have a thread about infibulation as well, I'll try to find out the link. Infibulation is another questionable practice.

Interesting link: Circumcision Fact Sheet 

Sources: American Cancer Society, Journal of the American Medical Association

PS: I found the post about infibulation by Sharon
FGM Facts


----------



## ayed

Thank you Silviap for choosing this article.
Everyone has his own opinions ,views and faiths 

Kindly, don't tell our WR pals right here that I am circumcised


----------



## gaer

"Feminine Beauty"???????????????

What the bleep, bleep, bleep does this have to do with BEAUTY?

This is cruel, it is mutilation and it is WRONG.

And it's all about control. And the men who are for it are pigs, the women who allow it to happen are brainwashed. The are victims.

Sorry folks. No smiley faces from me on this one. <grrrr>

Let's see how many men consider castration as "okay" because it enhances male beauty. <yuck>


----------



## ayed

> Let's see how many men consider castration as "okay" because it enhances male beauty.


 
Gaer , what about Falopectomy or Uterectomy?


----------



## zebedee

Thankyou, ayed, for translating all that information for this debate. I'd like to give you my views on what you have offered us.



			
				ayed said:
			
		

> @Dr.Hamid al-Ghawwabi stated that the uncircumcised woman’s labia minora secrete discharges that accumulate and smell awful which could cause vaginal or urethral inflammation.


Vaginal fluids or discharges are secreted in order to keep the pH of the vagina neutral. They only "smell awful" in the case of bad personal hygiene, just like any other bodily secretion like sweat, saliva, penile secretion etc. Circumcision cannot change that. Better hygiene can.



			
				ayed said:
			
		

> As for Dr.Ravich who made a lecture at the seminar “The Cancer and Environment” which held in Düsseldorf, he had stated that the circumcised men are less likely to be affected with Penial Cancer than those uncircumcised and that women who are married to circumcised men are less likely to be affected with Uterus Cancer than those women who are married to uncircumcised.


I don't see this as an argument for female circumcision.



			
				ayed said:
			
		

> Circumcision decreases oversensitivity in the clitoris that overgrows and sticks out up to more than “3 cm long when it is erected. Imagine how a man could contact his wife sexually while she is having an erectile organ like he do!!??


What on earth is "oversensitivity"? Oversensitivity according to who? Why should there be a limit to sensitivity? Yes, women's clitorises come in different shapes and sizes, just like men's penises. I think 3 cm long clitorises are a small minority. Shall we also chop off all those penises that are longer than the average?  



			
				ayed said:
			
		

> Saying “female circumcision” causes female sexual impotence is groundless because impotence is caused by many reasons unless it be a Pharaonic circumcision--Clitorectomy”


Yes, impotence is caused by many reasons, many of them psychological. But you have to admit that cutting off even the tip of the main organ by which a woman receives sexual stimulation is also one of them.  



> The Islamic legal circumcision is very beneficial to people because they follow up and obey the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).Thus, both nymphomania and eroticism disappear.


Sexual arousal is mainly in the brain, nymphomania is a psychological condition and would not be affected by cutting off the clitoris. 



> The circumcision, also, prevents woman’s clitoris from germinal inflammations.


Washing does too.



> In hot countries such as: Egypt, Sudan and Arabian Peninsula and others, woman is of somewhat long clitoris which increases excessively the sexual desire when it rubs her cloths.


It's also very hot in the summer here in Spain and I don't see women walking around with permanent smiles on their faces. And if there are any, lucky them!



> Thus, the medical view suggests that the clitoris tip be slightly chopped to modify woman’s lust.


Why should women's lust have to be modified? Do women rape? Do women go on lustful rampages causing sexual aggression?



			
				ayed said:
			
		

> Gaer , what about Falopectomy or Uterectomy?


The only reasons you have stated in favour of female circumcision are:
1) to curtail women's sexual pleasure.
2) to avoid inflammations and infections that a regular personal hygiene also avoids.
A falopectomy or a uterectomy have nothing to do with sexual pleasure and are a response to a real biological need. In my view, you cannot compare them with female circumcision.

regards,
zeb


----------



## ayed

Zeb:


> A falopectomy or a uterectomy have nothing to do with sexual pleasure and are a response to a real biological need. In my view, you cannot compare them with female circumcision.


First off , I thank you very much for spending your valuable time commenting on my article.Everyone has different views and cannot be forced to do somthing he is not convinced of .
Second , I am teasing Gaer by saying "Falopectomy or Uterectomy"
Again, thank you all for sharing views , opinions and thoughts with each other.
Ayed's regards


----------



## archimede

ayed said:
			
		

> Zeb:
> 
> First off , I thank you very much for spending your valuable time commenting on my article.Everyone has different views and cannot be forced to do somthing he is not convinced of .


With all due respect, it seems to me you are conveniently evading zebedee's objections.

Alessandro


----------



## ayed

archimede said:
			
		

> With all due respect, it seems to me you are conveniently evading zebedee's objections.
> 
> Alessandro


Thank you Alessandro for your comments.
I am convinced of circumcision.Zebedee is convinced of his own beliefs .Ia m not forced to accept such things and so is he , as well.His objections is his own views.I can;t impose on him somethings that H does not believe in.So are you, Alessandro.
Thanks


----------



## onetwothreegood

if someone says 'hi. my father and his father and his father and his father before me raped and murdered... it is now my tradition'.  technically i should be able to get away with that excuse if people are allowed to circumcise without the womans concent. (also thats how i feel about forcing something upon a new born baby of 5 days old. or was it 5 weeks? i don't know i'm not flash with religious history)

if something is forced upon somebody, or somebody doesnt have a choice in what happens (such as being raped or murdered) then there is really no excuse to it. it can literally only mean 'inhumane'.

in saying that. don't forget the countries including america that still put people to death. 

so unless the girls want to be circumcised, then my personal opinion on the matter is that it is wrong.


----------



## Benjy

it's 8 days. i don't know really very much about female circumcision (in faact i was completely ignorant of the pratice before the subject was brought up) but comparing rape and murder to male circumcision at birth is not really the same thing at all and does nothing but try and provoke an emotional reaction. the religious traditions of the jews date back thousands of years and circumcision is considered the sign of the convenant between god and abraham. now if you don't believe in that, thats cool, i don't either, but don't make them out to be inhumane barbarians because they circumcise their male children.


----------



## vic_us

zebedee said:
			
		

> Shall we also chop off all those penises that are longer than the average?



Ouch! Are you sure your first name isn't Lorena?


----------



## onetwothreegood

Benjy said:
			
		

> it's 8 days. i don't know really very much about female circumcision (in faact i was completely ignorant of the pratice before the subject was brought up) but comparing rape and murder to male circumcision at birth is not really the same thing at all and does nothing but try and provoke an emotional reaction. the religious traditions of the jews date back thousands of years and circumcision is considered the sign of the convenant between god and abraham. now if you don't believe in that, thats cool, i don't either, but don't make them out to be inhumane barbarians because they circumcise their male children.



Is this going to turn into a religious debate? lol. if so (i'd go into a big speech about how we arent meant to smoke, or do any harm to our bodies including scarring and tattoos... but cutting our foreskin off is perfectly fine... but i won't ) comparing rape to murder obviously isnt the same as child circumcism, but its the same idea in that you control something without their concent. Extreme example, yes... but same theory.

and i don't think they are inhumane barbarians. its what they believe in. are the suicide bombers you keep hearing about on the news inhumane barbarians? no. its what they believe in. the 'act' is still inhumane though. the people effected are still victoms.


----------



## vic_us

On the same topic and on a more serious note (well, it all depends how serious you consider psychoanalysis to be and particularly this author), I challenge you to read the following article. I won't make reference to the title because a moderator will close the thread immediately.

Here's one of the paragraphs: 

_The clitoris as a primary signifier of adult female sexuality is repressed in the symbolic organisation of adult sexuality. One would expect then, within the framework of Sofoulis' reading, that in feminine sublimations in cultural productions not only would the paternal organ be fantasmatically appropriated but that the missing clitoris would also be re-appropriated as a leading metaphor for technocultural production and as a signifier of sexual desire. _ 

Here's the whole article:

http://ensemble.va.com.au/array/steff_04.html


----------



## Cath.S.

> its the same idea in that you control something without their concent. Extreme example, yes... but same theory.


I agree with that point of view.

In my opinion be it male or female circumcision, it amounts to an abuse of power. 

Now not only do we have the ability to analyse, but I consider it is some sort of duty: behind every human action lurks a symbol.

Male circumcision can be interpreted as symbolic castration, fathers asserting their dominance upon their sons, whose body they own.

So circumcision is a statement, repeated generation after generation, of patriarchal dominance, which is a model of society we can chose to like or to dislike. I personally find it distasteful. 

But I would certainly not try and outlaw circumcision, as I don't believe that my choices have universal value (and as I said in another thread, I don't think that laws bear any relationship to reality).


----------



## Piano_boy_chile

Hey, come on, I'm a man and I'm totally against this practice, I've always find so 'funny'? sort of speak, the way men in men-dominated countries (and sometimes that includes Latinamerica) have all the 'pleasure' of dominating women and at the same time deny the pleasure to them. Isn't it more exciting to think the the opposite sex can feel as horny as you, and desires as badly as you, and have the right to say when to have sexual intercourse as much as you? That always strucks me when thinking about the topic, I think most men find exciting the fact that they can turn on their couple, but then again, many don't realize that deep inside them, they think that women don't have like the right to feel pleasure. It's a very , how would you say, "concepto cultural muy arraigado". So I agree with Sperdomo in that point of considering female circumsicion similar to slavery, child abuse, torture, genocide, etc. It prevents human beings from having their natural conditions as human beings. Imagine a country where people have their left arms cut off because of a religious tradition. Why would you take away an elemental tool of our existance?


----------



## vic_us

While we are in the topic of cutting and slicing (by no means I'd like to digress), I'd like to make reference to the book _Castration: An Abbreviated History of Western Manhood _ by Gary Taylor. I never bought it but I loved and kept the review Salon.com published. It's shorter and less complicated than the other article I posted. I'm sure that the following excerpt will capture women's imagination and interest.  

_
Taylor addresses Freud's boneheaded question "What does woman want?" by discussing vasectomy as a modern update of castration and suggesting that in the overpopulated 21st century -- as "abnormal" sexual and gender identities are increasingly accepted and science plunges into cloning and artificial genetic manipulation -- a eunuch is exactly what many women want. _ 

http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2000/12/13/taylor/


----------



## vic_us

onetwothreegood said:
			
		

> and i don't think they are inhumane barbarians. its what they believe in. are the suicide bombers you keep hearing about on the news inhumane barbarians? no. its what they believe in. the 'act' is still inhumane though. the people effected are still victoms.



I'm sure that by now your name has been added to Mr. Gonzales' -US attorney general- blacklist. What does this mean? The bad news is that if you decide to visit the US, you'll be sent back home. The good news is that Cat Stevens is on the same list!


----------



## zebedee

May I remind everyone at this point that the title of this thread is Female Circumcision?

I say so because I don't see male and female circumcision in the same light. In fact the only similarity between them is that both are practised on little babies who have no say in the matter. But then in many countries,Spain for example, baby girls have their ears pierced too.

 I'm not saying that male circumcision is as inoffensive as piercing ears, but it is just cutting a little piece of skin _around_ the penis. This does not affect the penis' correct functioning as a sexual organ nor does it decrease the penis' sensitivity. In fact, aside from religious reasons, circumcision is also a medical solution for fimosis.

Female circumcision leaves women with a nub of scar tissue instead of  their sexual organ. 

I wonder... if male circumcision affected men as much as female circumcision affects women, would both practices have been abolished many years ago? I rather fear the answer is yes.

zeb


----------



## Cath.S.

zebedee said:
			
		

> May I remind everyone at this point that the title of this thread is Female Circumcision?
> 
> I say so because I don't see male and female circumcision in the same light. In fact the only similarity between them is that both are practised on little babies who have no say in the matter. But then in many countries,Spain for example, baby girls have their ears pierced too.
> 
> I'm not saying that male circumcision is as inoffensive as piercing ears, but it is just cutting a little piece of skin _around_ the penis. This does not affect the penis' correct functioning as a sexual organ nor does it decrease the penis' sensitivity. In fact, aside from religious reasons, circumcision is also a medical solution for fimosis.
> 
> Female circumcision leaves women with a nub of scar tissue instead of their sexual organ.
> 
> I wonder... if male circumcision affected men as much as female circumcision affects women, would both practices have been abolished many years ago? I rather fear the answer is yes.
> 
> zeb


I rather fear the answer is no.
Let's keep in mind the fact that we are a fairly perverted species and that language allows us to perceive as good and necessary what our eyes and all our senses would show us as being harmful and useless, if only they were allowed to have their say.
I think male circumcision affects men as much as its female equivalent does women, but in a different way. No matter what harm it may cause: those who suffered it accept it gladly, because it makes them part of their group and feel like they belong.


----------



## Piano_boy_chile

What you're forgetting and maybe misread is that male circumcision DOES NOT affect the penis in its normal functioning as a sexual organ, but female circumcision deprives women from feeling sexual pleasure, taking an essential part of them.
And indeed here male circumsicíon is practised as a medical curity for fimosis.


----------



## Narda

I agree with Benji, who are we to say anything.  Do we know the origin of this tradition.  Cruel and bloody as it is, we are forgetting that the older women propiciate it, at least in a great, great majority of the cases; that has to tell us something.  I would recommend that we try to find out where and how it started.  

I can tell you though, that if I had a daughter I would definitely try to shield her from harm at any cost and I believe (maybe I am an idealist) that most mothers would do the same.  If we were to believe that statement, wouldn't those mothers that agree with this "sacrifice" believe that they in fact are shielding the younger women from something worse?  Could it be that if girls don't go through this they would be shun from society forcing them to stay single and at the end alone and lonely with no means to sustain their basic needs?  Let's "walk a mile in their shoes" before condemning them.  As I said not for my daughter, for many reasons, one of them is that I don't live there and I don't have to abide by their rules.  But, what if it were otherwise?  I don't know.


----------



## lsp

onetwothreegood said:
			
		

> are the suicide bombers you keep hearing about on the news inhumane barbarians? no. its what they believe in. the 'act' is still inhumane though. the people effected are still victoms.


Yes. The suicide bombers are inhumane barbarians. In the name of their own beliefs and often in the name of God they have killed innocent people, hurt many others and destroyed many lives. They have hurt the causes on both sides of the conflict and the hopes for peace for us all.


----------



## Marc1

Perhaps it is necessary to see this practice for what it is, a cultural practice by a religion that is historically set one thousands years behind our time.
But so is male circumcision you say? And you are correct. 
Male circumcision was a sign given by God to His chosen people with a purpose ... 5000 years ago. Why would God ask for that? I plan to ask Him in person one day, for now it will remain a mystery. 

Some today try to find an ulterior motive in God's directive, and suggest health reasons, one being the alleged relation between smegma and cervical cancer, the biggest medical hoax of human kind. (see www.foreskin.org)The claims of "hygiene" have as much sense as amputating an arm to avoid underarm BO.

So where does female circumcision come in?
As far as I know female circumcision is a cultural practice and not a religious mandate http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm#pass

Adopted by Muslims it is tolerated and not imposed. Different countries practice it in different ways and for different reasons. Not all female circumcision include the removal of the clitoris, some cut off the labia minora others practice a small ritualistic incision with no further consequences.

A barbaric ritual of that nature that compares favorably only with the cannibalistic rituals of Papua that eat their relatives brains when they die, can only be supported by the most advanced methods of brain washing parents into believing they will "chase away the demons" by circumcising their daughters.  

The interesting part is that when removing the clitoris from an adult would probably achieve rather lasting disinterest for sex, that can hardly be said for infant circumcision. As any female forumite can confirm, sexual pleasure is not achieved exclusively with the clitoris and when I don't have statistics at hand, vaginal orgasm is rather common and perhaps the loss of the clitoris in early infancy would mean that for those unfortunate females, vaginal orgasm would probably be the norm.

Now far from suggesting such practice as a way to achieve VO I just want to point out that the female genital mutilation is not only a show of barbarism that should have been outlawed 500 years ago, it is a crime against a minor and should carry long gaol sentences but over all it is stupid and useless since it does not achieve for a minute the intended purpose of turning the women into a reproduction machine deprived of any sexual gratification.

As a parting thought I think that female mutilators must be rather insecure if they need to resort to knifes to keep their women with them.


----------



## Artrella

*  On* *human orgasm*


*Vaginal vs. clitoral orgasms*

A distinction is sometimes made between clitoral and vaginal orgasms in women. An orgasm that results from combined clitoral and vaginal stimulation is called a blended orgasm. Many doctors and feminist advocates have claimed that vaginal orgasms do not exist, and that female orgasms are obtained only from clitoral arousal. Recent discoveries about the size of the clitoris — it extends inside the body, around the vagina — would seem to support this theory. On the other hand, other sources argue that vaginal orgasms are dominant or more "mature."

This latter viewpoint was first promulgated by Sigmund Freud. In 1905, Freud argued that clitoral orgasm was an adolescent phenomenon, and upon reaching puberty the proper response of mature women changes to vaginal orgasms. [1] (http://www.uno.edu/~asoble/pages/koedt.htm) While Freud did not provide evidence supporting this basic assumption, the consequences of the theory were greatly elaborated thereafter.

In 1966, Masters and Johnson published pivotal research into the phases of sexual stimulation. Their work included women as well as men, and unlike Kinsey previously (in 1948 and 1953), set out to determine the physiological stages leading up to and following orgasm. [2] (http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/mandj.html) One of the results was the promotion of the idea that vaginal and clitoral orgasms follow the same stages of physical response. Additionally, Masters and Johnson argued that clitoral stimulation is the primary source of orgasms.

This standpoint has been adopted by feminist advocates, to the extent that some hold that the vaginal orgasm was a mirage, created by men for their convenience. *Certainly many women can only experience orgasm with clitoral stimulation, either alone or in addition to vaginal stimulation, while (less commonly) other women can only experience orgasm with vaginal stimulation. * The clitoral-only orgasm school of thought became an article of faith in some feminist circles. Alternatively, some feminists instead feel the clitoral orgasm robs females of the source of the womanhood.

A new understanding of vaginal orgasm has been emerging since the 1980s. Many women report that some form of vaginal stimulation is essential to subjectively experience a complete orgasm, in addition to or in lieu of external (clitoral) stimulation. *Recent anatomical research has pointed towards a connection between intravaginal tissues and the clitoris. It has been shown that these tissues have connecting nerves. This, combined with the anatomical evidence that the internal part of the clitoris is a much larger organ than previously thought could also explain credible reports of orgasms in women who have undergone clitoridectomy as part of so-called female circumcision.*

In some cases it is possible for women to orgasm through stimulation of secondary sexual organs (eg breasts), and in very rare cases, without any direct stimulation to the genitalia or the other specific erogenous zones, but instead stimulation of the non-specific zones (i.e. neck).


----------



## beatrizg

I really find it crazy to start discussing about vaginal vs clitoral orgasms here. 

The fact is that an important part of the female body is mutilated. And there is no way of justifying that practice. 
I could not even consider mutilating or castrating my dog! even if he/she starts annoying the guests by rubbing himself/herself against their legs.


----------



## Artrella

beatrizg said:
			
		

> I really find it crazy to start discussing about vaginal vs clitoral orgasms here.
> 
> The fact is that an important part of the female body is mutilated. And there is no way of justifying that practice.
> I could not even consider mutilating or castrating my dog! even if he/she starts annoying the guests by rubbing himself/herself against their legs.




You are right Beatriz!  I'm sorry for having posted that article, it is not a matter of how a woman gets her climax and saying "what does a woman need her clit for, if she can perfectly achieve the orgasm via vagina?".  Yes this has developed into something totally off-topic.
Although knowing these physiological facts is very important and instructive to all of us, this thread was about *HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT OF FREE CHOICE!!!*


----------



## beatrizg

Artrella said:
			
		

> You are right Beatriz!  I'm sorry for having posted that article, it is not a matter of how a woman gets her climax and saying "what does a woman need her clit for, if she can perfectly achieve the orgasm via vagina?".  Yes this has developed into something totally off-topic.
> Although knowing these physiological facts is very important and instructive to all of us, this thread was about *HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT OF FREE CHOICE!!!*




What I think Artrella is that nobody has the right to mutilate someone else's body. A woman should be free to choose to have an orgasm with whatever part of the body she wants.


----------



## Artrella

beatrizg said:
			
		

> What I think Artrella is that nobody has the right to mutilate someone else's body. A woman should be free to choose to have an orgasm with whatever part of the body she wants.



Yes Beatriz.  I totally agree with you.  As a woman I think this is the most denigrating thing a woman has to suffer.  And I am so sorry this happens in XXI century, together with so many other terrible things!!


----------



## scotu

Looks like female circumcision is alive and well in the USA.  I wonder why no one is ever put on trial for mulitation of male children.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15447708/


----------



## GenJen54

scotu said:


> Looks like female circumcision is alive and well in the USA. I wonder why no one is ever put on trial for mulitation of male children.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15447708/


 
Hi scotu,

I'm certain if a parent had attempted to circumcize their two-year old male child at home, with no doctor supervision, no anesthetic, and by using a pair of ordinary household scissors, that parent would be put on trial. 

Male circumcision has been viewed as a culturally acceptable, and quite legal, practice in the U.S. for decades. Many circles believe male circumcision to be medically helpful, and studies have proven it helps prevent sexually transmitted disease.

That doesn't mean it is for everyone. 

There is no practical medical purpose for female circumcision.  It is mutilation, pure and simple.


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:


> There is no practical medical purpose for female circumcision.  It is mutilation, pure and simple.



If I may, Generalissimo, I'd like to rephrase that…

There is no practical purpose for female circumcision.  It is mutilation, pure and simple.​
It is a potent symbol of subjugation and 'ownership' of the woman in question. I doubt that it serves any social purpose either.
What really astounds me is that women to whom it has been done are prepared to co-operate in it being done to their children.


----------



## Tsoman

I took a cultural anthropology class once and I just abotu hated every minute of it. We spent so much time talking about 'ethnocentrism' and how we should never ever use words like 'primitive' or 'civilized' that I didn't learn anything of remote value. People view things ethnocentrictly and subjectively and I'm going to embrace that. Female genital mutilation is sick and those who do it are simply animals.


----------



## roxcyn

GenJen54 said:


> Hi scotu,
> 
> I'm certain if a parent had attempted to circumcize their two-year old male child at home, with no doctor supervision, no anesthetic, and by using a pair of ordinary household scissors, that parent would be put on trial.
> 
> Male circumcision has been viewed as a culturally acceptable, and quite legal, practice in the U.S. for decades. Many circles believe male circumcision to be medically helpful, and studies have proven it helps prevent sexually transmitted disease.
> 
> That doesn't mean it is for everyone.
> 
> There is no practical medical purpose for female circumcision.  It is mutilation, pure and simple.



Hello, thanks for this informative discussion.  Whenever someone has always discussed female circumcision, the person would say "female mutilation."  A baby girl and a baby boy are very similar at birth.  They both have a "foreskin," whether or not you decide it is "right" to do it, *if you think that it is "wrong" or "mutilation" to a female*, then what is it to a male?  Essentialy it would be like saying: oh, you don't need your eyelids or finger nails, let's remove them.  Or let's remove the baby's apendix because everyone knows that it is a useless organ.

As for religious beliefs, I am not sure.  God has made the perfect baby, so why are you trying to manipulate something?


----------



## roxcyn

Tsoman said:


> I took a cultural anthropology class once and I just abotu hated every minute of it. We spent so much time talking about 'ethnocentrism' and how we should never ever use words like 'primitive' or 'civilized' that I didn't learn anything of remote value. People view things ethnocentrictly and subjectively and I'm going to embrace that. Female genital mutilation is sick and those who do it are simply animals.



Many people don't do male circumcision, er, *male genital mutilation*, so I guess to them it would be *"sick" as well*.


----------



## Tsoman

It is sick and it happened to me 

I think it's less sick than the female version however, since my thing still works fine.


----------



## scotu

GenJen54 said:


> Hi scotu,
> 
> Male circumcision has been viewed as a culturally acceptable, and quite legal, practice in the U.S. for decades. Many circles believe male circumcision to be medically helpful, and studies have proven it helps prevent sexually transmitted disease.
> 
> There is no practical medical purpose for female circumcision. It is mutilation, pure and simple.


So you maintain that male mulitation is ok because it is culturally acceptible. But, female mutliation is culturally acceptable in the areas where it is performed therefore it should seem to be acceptable in your logic.


----------



## Tsoman

Well, if you are a circumsized male, you don't have to clean out the smegma from the foreskin. So I'm glad I don't have to do that.


----------



## ps139

sperdomo said:


> Sorry, but I hardly think speaking out against female mutilation is ethnocentric. Cutting off a woman's clitoris is not a simple cultural difference! What about racism, slavery, torture, or the use of children as soldiers?  These are practices that exist in some cultures. Should the international community consider these as benign cultural differences? Any practice that is harmful, damaging, or severely and negatively limits an individual is fair game for criticism.


I agree. Although, the advantage to arguing from a relativist standpoint "it may not be right for me but it is right for them," is that it is virtually impossible to criticize. Some proponents of that mindset fail to recognize that in some cultures, barbarism is en vogue.


----------



## ps139

scotu said:


> So you maintain that male mulitation is ok because it is culturally acceptible. But, female mutliation is culturally acceptable in the areas where it is performed therefore it should seem to be acceptable in your logic.


I believe it is culturally acceptable because it has its origins in preventing health risks. Besides, I don't think it limits a man's sexual enjoyment in any way.


----------



## pickypuck

roxcyn said:


> Many people don't do male circumcision, er, *male genital mutilation*, so I guess to them it would be *"sick" as well*.


 
I think so if their penises work fine. But for those adults suffering from phimosis, circumcision is the only solution. There are more options for children, but it depends on the case and it's the doctor who has to make an evaluation. I wouldn't call it male genital mutilation. In my opinion, a comparison of the two practices could be made if not only the skin but the whole glans was retired. I totally disagree with female ablation (and with male circumcision if there is not a medical reason).


----------



## GenJen54

roxcyn said:


> They both have a "foreskin," whether or not you decide it is "right" to do it, *if you think that it is "wrong" or "mutilation" to a female*, then what is it to a male?
> 
> As for religious beliefs, I am not sure.  God has made the perfect baby, so why are you trying to manipulate something?





scotu said:


> So you maintain that male mulitation is ok because it is culturally acceptible. But, female mutliation is culturally acceptable in the areas where it is performed therefore it should seem to be acceptable in your logic.



Let's have a brief anatomy lesson, shall we?  

When a male is cirumcised, the skin around the glans (tip of the penis) is removed. This skin is called the foreskin. It is not medically necessary, although some people argue that males who are not circumcised are more "sensitive" and therefore more aroused during sex.  It is up to parents to decide whether this procedure is right for their child.  Some base their decision on religious beliefs.  Others base their decision on advice from a doctor.  There have been cases when men, once grown, suffer from psychological problems from the lost foreskin.  

Removal of the foreskin has for centuries if not millenia been viewed as a means of helping keep the area clean. (See Tsoman's smegma post for a more "to the point" comment on the topic). 

When a woman is circumcised, it is not the "foreskin" (clitoral hood) that is removed. It is the ENTIRE clitoris, which would be like hacking off  the entire glans (penis tip). There is a huge difference. (Remember Lorena Bobbit?)

So yes, female circumcision is tantamount to mutilation in my book, because there is no medical need to perform this procedure. If you would go back and read some of the original posts, as well as related materials, you would see that many young girls are not "circumcised" until they are around puberty. Often, their entire clitoris (glans) is cut off with a dirty, dull razor. Further, in some instances, their vaginal openings are sutured nearly completely closed, in order to deter anyone from taking away a young girl's virginity.

The complications caused by this type of "procedure" are numerous. There is the risk of infection from the razor (or scissors, as was the recent case in the U.S.). Many young women do not survive this.  There is the risk of infection from suturing the inner labia together. Since menstrual flow cannot come "out," there is a high risk of bacteria remaining and infecting the vulva, vagina and uterus.

Finally, when a young woman is finally "deflowered," her vulva is not nearly the shape and size it should be for penetration. Sex therefore becomes extremely painful and can remain so for the rest of this woman's life.

So yes, there is a huge difference between the two procedures.


----------



## cuchuflete

If male circumcision is to be called mutilation, then what name shall we apply to shaving of facial or other bodily hair?  Is a tonsillectomy mutilation?  What about removal of a wisdom tooth?

Mutilating a female is very serious.  Trite comparisons to unrelated matters is not useful in understanding the topic.


----------



## maxiogee

roxcyn said:


> As for religious beliefs, I am not sure.  God has made the perfect baby, so why are you trying to manipulate something?



So we shouldn't give any medical treatment to a new-born baby - because it is perfect in the eyes of someone's God? 
I'm sorry to disagree, but there are many babies who would not survive long without medical intervention — and if this God makes _some_ babies imperfectly, then there is nothing to say that all the others are perfect.


----------



## heidita

> CASOS EN ESPAÑA
> 
> En España se tuvo constancia de estas prácticas a raíz de varios casos en los que niñas inmigrantes pidieron auxilio a sus profesores en el colegio, ante el temor de que sus familiares les mutilaran durante un periodo de vacaciones en su país de origen. El Defensor del Pueblo también se ha hecho eco de casos en los que inmigrantes acudieron a centros sanitarios para que procedieran a la mutilación genital de sus hijos.


 
Not only have there been mutilations on girls here in Spain practised by immigrants, mostly from Sahara, but the parliament had to legislate that mutiilation was going to be persecuted even if practised on children living in spain, but in danger of being mutilated in their home-countries on their holidays as it had actually happened. This law is applied on legal as well as illegal immigrants residing in Spain. I think this is definitely a step forward.
In the link it is stated that girls went to their school teachers expressing their fears of getting mutilated on holidays as their parents had told them.

http://www.lukor.com/not-por/0504/19133350.htm

I don't think circumcision in men has anything to do with female mutilation of the clitoris.


----------



## la reine victoria

> *Heidita*
> I don't think circumcision in men has anything to do with female mutilation of the clitoris.


 

Of course it doesn't, Heidi. Men can still obtain sexual pleasure without a foreskin. To lose your clitoris in its entirety is barbaric. Some women are able to obtain vaginal orgasms but the seat of female pleasure is definitely the clitoris.





LRV


----------



## scotu

cuchuflete said:


> Mutilating a female is very serious. Trite comparisons to unrelated matters is not useful in understanding the topic.


 
I agree,  I was trying to make the point that a practice which is "culturally acceptable_"_ _ain't_ necessairly right and in doing so I probably trivialized this matter by comparing it to male circumsision, I am sorry if I conveyed the impression that I thought female mutliation is not a very serious matter.


----------



## distille

Female mutilation is basically the expression of a belief that women are not entitled to sexual pleasure, that their body and sexuality belong to their future husband and not to themselves. Basically, beside the pain, the risks of infection, it is a way to say that women are not adult and that they should be controlled. it is an awful tradition and many women are fighting against it.

Some doctors have specialised into clitoris reconstruction. Given that the clitoris is much longer inside the body than outside they used the inside part to reconstruct it.

In France it is forbiden to practice it and it is forbiden to bring your kids to another country to practice it. However, this can be quite hard to control. There had been some trials but it appears that people involved in such practice didn't really understand why it was so bad. Sometimes also the mother opposed it but the aunts managed to do it even without the agreement of the mother. And i'm sure they thought they were making the right choice. It wasn't done out of hate, it was done because they perceived such practice as necessary to be a member of the community. 

What we should be aware of if that social pressure is something so much stronger than individual will for so many of us. Saying that people that practice female mutilation are barbarians is idiotic, going against something that has been accepted for centuries in your own society asks for more courage than most average humans have.


----------



## la reine victoria

> *Distille*
> Saying that people that practice female mutilation are barbarians is idiotic, going against something that has been accepted for centuries in your own society asks for more courage than most average humans have.


 


I said that removal of the clitoris is a barbaric act.  I should perhaps have added, "seen through the eyes of those who don't practise it."

I respect the established practices of any culture provided they are happy with them.  But, in this instance, I really don't see how they can be.





LRV


----------



## scotu

I risk exposing my complete ignorance of this subject but I have a question: are there not two different procedures? 
1. Circumcision  (removal of the lips of the labia).
and 2. clitoral removal. 
Don't some women sometimes have the first procedure done for aesthetic purposes?


----------



## distille

la reine victoria said:


> I said that removal of the clitoris is a barbaric act. I should perhaps have added, "seen through the eyes of those who don't practise it."
> 
> I respect the established practices of any culture provided they are happy with them. But, in this instance, I really don't see how they can be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV


 
I'm sorry if i offended you, this comment was not directed at you. I agree with you: it is a barbaric act. What I meant is that saying that people who do it are barbarians is, in my opinion, a refusal to understand the complexity of the human psyche.


----------



## la reine victoria

No offence taken, Distille.  





LRV


----------



## GenJen54

scotu said:
			
		

> I risk exposing my complete ignorance of this subject but I have a question: are there not two different procedures?
> 1. Circumcision (removal of the lips of the labia).
> and 2. clitoral removal.
> Don't some women sometimes have the first procedure done for aesthetic purposes?


 
Some women have what is called a "vaginoplasty." Basically, this is a procedure, performed by a plastic surgeon, to help "trim" the labia which have been stretched out and become saggy, usually from childbirth, or even age. In this procedure, a small triangle of skin is removed on each "side" and then the labia are "tightened," so they have a more "youthful" appearance. This type of procedure is done primarily for aesthetic purposes, although in some instances, it can provide relief and allow for more pleasurable sex.

There is also another procedure which helps remove excess skin around the clitoris, which can helps allow a woman to achieve orgasm, since the clitoris is more "exposed." 

Again, neither of these procedures is "circumcision," and neither impede a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure or reach orgasm.


----------



## Sepia

I am very disappointed to see intelligent persons once again be railroaded into discussing pseudo-arguments - circumsision prevents cancer, cultural bla bla, etc.

It is totally unimportant what some religious leader or Dr. So-and-so has to say about this because the point is: Persons - young boys and girls are being circumsised without anyone giving them a chance to decide if they want this change made on the body nature gave them. In the penal codes of every democratic country I know, this is - beyond any question - a criminal act of violence! 

If somebody wants it done for whichever reasons, when he or she can decide for themselves it is fine with me. So if some of the religious guys here can present something out of their books that justify these actions, all they have done is to prove that their religion justifies criminal violence.

That ought to be pure logic to most people.


----------



## distille

Sepia said:


> I am very disappointed to see intelligent persons once again be railroaded into discussing pseudo-arguments - circumsision prevents cancer, cultural bla bla, etc.
> 
> It is totally unimportant what some religious leader or Dr. So-and-so has to say about this because the point is: Persons - young boys and girls are being circumsised without anyone giving them a chance to decide if they want this change made on the body nature gave them. In the penal codes of every democratic country I know, this is - beyond any question - a criminal act of violence!
> 
> If somebody wants it done for whichever reasons, when he or she can decide for themselves it is fine with me. So if some of the religious guys here can present something out of their books that justify these actions, all they have done is to prove that their religion justifies criminal violence.
> 
> That ought to be pure logic to most people.




For me there's quite a difference between male and female circumcision. Excision prevents a woman to fully experience  her sexuality. Plus, if you read how it is often done, the amount of pain and the medical risks are very high.
In the case of male circumcision, for medical or religious reasons, it does not seem to have consequences on sexuality. I see it as a ritual, like, perhaps, permanent body painting in some societies.


----------



## Layzie

distille said:


> For me there's quite a difference between male and female circumcision. Excision prevents a woman to fully experience  her sexuality. Plus, if you read how it is often done, the amount of pain and the medical risks are very high.
> In the case of male circumcision, for medical or religious reasons, it does not seem to have consequences on sexuality. I see it as a ritual, like, perhaps, permanent body painting in some societies.



It kills nerve endings in men, and thus,  less pleasure. It's not a rite of passage because it's before the baby has learned a sense of anything, usually they havent even opened their eyes yet.


----------



## JazzByChas

I think, regardless of culture or practice, that dismembering someone, in this case a female of her clitoris, is a barbaric act. As Jen and LRV said earlier, just because something has become a "tradition" in a culture does not justify it. There are many cultures, where at once exist people with differing points of view. I believe Cuchu said, that the general practice or law is usually determined by those in power at the time. This does not exonerate vile deeds...it just means they are "accepted" by the power structure of that society.


----------



## scotu

Male circumcision is a cultural thing in Jewish and Muslim cultures and largely a "medical health" thing in much of the (protestant) western culture. Is this a practice in Asian cultures?


----------



## roxcyn

Tsoman said:


> Well, if you are a circumsized male, you don't have to clean out the smegma from the foreskin. So I'm glad I don't have to do that.



It's not that bad , actually I am, too, the same as you.  I don't think it is fair and I think it is a violation of the baby's rights.


----------



## roxcyn

GenJen54 said:


> Let's have a brief anatomy lesson, shall we?
> 
> When a male is cirumcised, the skin around the glans (tip of the penis) is removed. This skin is called the foreskin. It is not medically necessary, although some people argue that males who are not circumcised are more "sensitive" and therefore more aroused during sex.  It is up to parents to decide whether this procedure is right for their child.  Some base their decision on religious beliefs.  Others base their decision on advice from a doctor.  There have been cases when men, once grown, suffer from psychological problems from the lost foreskin.
> 
> Removal of the foreskin has for centuries if not millenia been viewed as a means of helping keep the area clean. (See Tsoman's smegma post for a more "to the point" comment on the topic).
> 
> When a woman is circumcised, it is not the "foreskin" (clitoral hood) that is removed. It is the ENTIRE clitoris, which would be like hacking off  the entire glans (penis tip). There is a huge difference. (Remember Lorena Bobbit?)
> 
> So yes, female circumcision is tantamount to mutilation in my book, because there is no medical need to perform this procedure. If you would go back and read some of the original posts, as well as related materials, you would see that many young girls are not "circumcised" until they are around puberty. Often, their entire clitoris (glans) is cut off with a dirty, dull razor. Further, in some instances, their vaginal openings are sutured nearly completely closed, in order to deter anyone from taking away a young girl's virginity.
> 
> The complications caused by this type of "procedure" are numerous. There is the risk of infection from the razor (or scissors, as was the recent case in the U.S.). Many young women do not survive this.  There is the risk of infection from suturing the inner labia together. Since menstrual flow cannot come "out," there is a high risk of bacteria remaining and infecting the vulva, vagina and uterus.
> 
> Finally, when a young woman is finally "deflowered," her vulva is not nearly the shape and size it should be for penetration. Sex therefore becomes extremely painful and can remain so for the rest of this woman's life.
> 
> So yes, there is a huge difference between the two procedures.



Please refer to the widipedia article on circumcision (male) and under the resources, look at some of those books, then we can talk.  Look at some of the videos of a circumcision being performed, tell me what it looks like.


----------



## roxcyn

cuchuflete said:


> If male circumcision is to be called mutilation, then what name shall we apply to shaving of facial or other bodily hair?  Is a tonsillectomy mutilation?  What about removal of a wisdom tooth?
> 
> Mutilating a female is very serious.  Trite comparisons to unrelated matters is not useful in understanding the topic.



I see that you are from the USA.  I was making the comparision because from the perspective that do the female circumcision it is a "good" thing, but from the USA perspective it is "mutilation," then if you ever get a chance to talk to someone out from the USA about the topic they are surprised, "why do they do that?!  Did the foreskin have a problem...?"  

So from an outsider perspective from another country IT IS JUST HOW THE USA SEEMS FEMALE CIRCUMCISION.


----------



## roxcyn

la reine victoria said:


> Of course it doesn't, Heidi. Men can still obtain sexual pleasure without a foreskin. To lose your clitoris in its entirety is barbaric. Some women are able to obtain vaginal orgasms but the seat of female pleasure is definitely the clitoris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LRV



It depends on how the circumcision was performed, some men cannot have pleasureful sex because they lost lots of skin from the remove of the skin because most had it done when they were a baby so their penis was not fully developed.

Circumcised men usually won't use a condom because the head of their penis cannot "feel" (is as sensitive) as a normal penis.  Some babies die due to the procedure, there are some that have mutilated penises that are disfigured due to incorrect circumcisions with doctors.  

I would like to hear from the non USA people, what do you think of men who are circumcised?


----------



## roxcyn

scotu said:


> I agree,  I was trying to make the point that a practice which is "culturally acceptable_"_ _ain't_ necessairly right and in doing so I probably trivialized this matter by comparing it to male circumsision, I am sorry if I conveyed the impression that I thought female mutliation is not a very serious matter.



Sorry, I am not trivilizing anything.  I just feel that if there is something that is done and there seems to be no point, then why is it being done?  We have to realize that many people were circumcizing males so that they wouldn't be "sexually active" or so that they would stop masterbating.  I am sure the same was done to females.  That was a few hundred years ago (at least in the USA).  So what I am saying is that the doctors "thought" that the procedure was beneficial for these reasons, then we see that there are changes saying that "it is more cleaner," etc.  Just rewording the argument to continue the practice, but not examine it from an outsider view.


----------



## roxcyn

Layzie said:


> It kills nerve endings in men, and thus,  less pleasure. It's not a rite of passage because it's before the baby has learned a sense of anything, usually they havent even opened their eyes yet.



It's only a rite of passage in some countries such as in the Phillipines where it is done around the age of 10 years to the boys.  It is not performed on babies as in the USA.


----------



## Qcumber

I thought the correct term was *excision* for females.


----------



## Layzie

"We have to realize that many people were circumcizing males so that they wouldn't be "sexually active" or so that they would stop masterbating."

Yet all it did was help the lubrication industry


----------



## serg79_

scotu said:


> and largely a "medical health" thing in much of the (protestant) western culture.


Actually, it's much more of a USA thing.

From Wikipedia: 

_A national survey of adult men found that 91% of men born in the 1970s, and 83% of men born in the 1980s were circumcised [in the USA]._

Compare to your northern neighbours:

_The incidence of child circumcision in Canada has been declining steadily. The National Institute for Health Information reports that the percentage of newborn boys circumcised in hospital was 9.2 percent in 2005_

And to the UK:

_Rickwood et al estimated that 3.8% of male children in the UK are currently (2000) being circumcised by the age of 15.__[21]__, having fallen from about 6.5% in the mid 1980s. The authors *considered half of these circumcisions unnecessary*, and called for a target to reduce to the level of 2%._

Maybe this topic deserves a different thread, though.


----------



## ps139

roxcyn said:


> We have to realize that many people were circumcizing males so that they wouldn't be "sexually active" or so that they would stop masterbating.


Are you serious? I don't know if you are a guy (circumcised or not) or a girl, but, circumcision has no effect on the level of someone's sexual activity or if they masturbate or not, or how frequently.


----------



## westie

Hi!

Interesting topic. 

IMHO the problem is when the arguments used are "religious reasons".  There's no argument you can use against faith or beliefs. As we could well see on this thread. And it is a shame because the ones hiding behind religion regarding this or other issues, are not even able to say if the arguments against their own are valid or not because they are scared of saying the wrong thing!

I wholeheartedly agree with those suggesting the only way to agree with this issue is if an adult, whether male or female, decides to go for it, voluntarely, whether because of faith or culture or health. As a personal decision took by an adult.


----------



## Lusitania

In Portugal we have people from Guinea Bissau that still have in some tribes this kind practise. There are reseachers and ngos working in GB for many years to try to substitute this practise for some other ritual of passage to adolescence and working on the capacity building of youth organizations. Women are more devoted to this practise than men. Many men have abandoned their wives that went through circumcision to other that haven't been through it. So, many women in GB are now giving it up and having other kind of rituals.


----------



## heidita

GOOD NEWS!! ¡¡¡BUENAS NOTICIAS!!




> Un inmigrante etíope fue declarado ayer culpable por un jurado de Lawrenceville (Georgia) de haberle practicado la ablación del clítoris a su hija de dos años, en la primera condena por esta práctica en Estados Unidos.


 


> Khalid Adem, a 30-year-old immigrant from Ethiopia, is charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children.
> Human rights observers said they believe this is the first criminal case in the U.S. involving the 5,000-year-old practice.
> Prosecutors say Adem used scissors to remove his daughter's clitoris in their apartment in 2001.


 
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/27/female.circumcision.ap/index.html

Is it possible that this is the first case which has been brought to trial?


----------



## Outsider

ps139 said:


> Are you serious? I don't know if you are a guy (circumcised or not) or a girl, but, circumcision has no effect on the level of someone's sexual activity or if they masturbate or not, or how frequently.


I think Roxcyn is right. Circumcision became popular in the West during the Victorian period, as a method of (supposedly) discouraging masturbation. Not that it worked, I'm sure.
Still, female "circumcision" is a very different procedure.


----------



## badgrammar

In the U.S., yes, the first case bought to trial of a female circumcision being practiced in the U.S.  

There have been countless trials for this in other countries, especially in countries where the practise continues although it is illegal.  I guess it just doesn't happen much on U.S. soil, and when it has, it has never been brought to trial? 

The artical also stupulates that it's the first criminal case, which implies there may have been other civil cases heard in court. 
I seem to remember another case of political refugee who was a victim to circumcision in her own country and went to courts to remain in the U.S....



heidita said:


> GOOD NEWS!! ¡¡¡BUENAS NOTICIAS!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/27/female.circumcision.ap/index.html
> 
> Is it possible that this is the first case which has been brought to trial?


----------



## Benjy

roxcyn said:


> Please refer to the widipedia article on circumcision (male) and under the resources, look at some of those books, then we can talk.  Look at some of the videos of a circumcision being performed, tell me what it looks like.



Have you read the articles on wiki?

I don't see anything to support you views? What I see at the end of so much academic writing is a lot of research which is ambiguous and contradictory at best.

All surgical intervention is going to look "bad". Thats just a silly an argument as any pro-lifer or militant vegan might use by thrusting pictures of aborted babies or dismembered cow carcasses in your face and saying "It's gross, it must be wrong!!11".


----------



## badgrammar

Male circumcision is in no way equal to female circumcision.  The former finds its roots in hygiene and the actual survival of males, the latter finds its roots in denying pleasure to females for ethical/religious reasons.  One is about survival, the other about domination/control.

Does anyone disagree with that?


----------



## serg79_

badgrammar said:


> Male circumcision is in no way equal to female circumcision. The former finds its roots in hygiene and the actual survival of males, the latter finds its roots in denying pleasure to females for ethical/religious reasons. One is about survival, the other about domination/control.
> 
> Does anyone disagree with that?


I think I do, because I'm not sure what male circumcision has to do with "survival", and even the hygiene thing is highly questionable.

As mentioned in my previous post in this thread, male circumcision is massively more common in the USA than it is in Canada, the UK or other countries with a similar Northern European-type culture.
In Denmark the rate has been about 2% for the last 50 years, yet in the USA "91% of men born in the 1970s, and 83% of men born in the 1980s were circumcised" (source: Wikipedia)... WHY??

(Moderators: please move this to a different thread if it's off-topic here).


----------



## Outsider

serg79_ said:


> In Denmark the rate has been about 2% for the last 50 years, yet in the USA "91% of men born in the 1970s, and 83% of men born in the 1980s were circumcised" (source: Wikipedia)... WHY??


I think that's what we call "culture". 

By the way, it's my impression, too, that circumcision was originally more a cultural thing than a matter of hygiene.


----------



## serg79_

Outsider said:


> I think that's what we call "culture".
> 
> By the way, it's my impression, too, that circumcision was originally more a cultural thing than a matter of hygiene.


But if it's purely a cultural thing, why is the USA *so *different with regard to male circumcision when compared to other countries which share a similar-ish culture... especially Canada?


----------



## Outsider

Because they like to be different from everyone else, like refusing to go metric, as the Lord intended?


----------



## serg79_

LOL. Well, you could be right there, although we still use a mixture of imperial and metric measurements in the UK, too.
But with regard to male circumcision, I'm sure a lot of people here would also see it as something barbaric and unnecessary, just as most United Statesians see female circumcision in that way.
But Badgrammar's comments about male circumcision being about "hygiene and survival confused: )" whereas female circumcision is supposedly more about "domination/control", are interesting to me.
I wonder if this is the majority view in the USA?


----------



## roxcyn

ps139 said:


> Are you serious? I don't know if you are a guy (circumcised or not) or a girl, but, circumcision has no effect on the level of someone's sexual activity or if they masturbate or not, or how frequently.



Look in my profile, male of course, and circumcised.  Anywho I was making the point that it was done for those reasongs many hundreds of years ago and you see that they seem crazy today.  Since God (that is if you believe in a god) made men and women in his image, with the foreskin then I do believe that it is not neccessary to remove it from either the boy or the female.


----------



## roxcyn

Benjy said:


> Have you read the articles on wiki?
> 
> I don't see anything to support you views? What I see at the end of so much academic writing is a lot of research which is ambiguous and contradictory at best.
> 
> All surgical intervention is going to look "bad". Thats just a silly an argument as any pro-lifer or militant vegan might use by thrusting pictures of aborted babies or dismembered cow carcasses in your face and saying "It's gross, it must be wrong!!11".



View the video footage:

External links

Video footage of a single circumcision lead by a doctor while teaching the procedure
(click on the wikipedia website)

Billy Ray Boyd. Circumcision Exposed: Rethinking a Medical and Cultural Tradition. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press, 1998. (ISBN 0-89594-939-3)
Anne Briggs. Circumcision: What Every Parent Should Know. Charlottesville, VA: Birth & Parenting Publications, 1985. (ISBN 0-9615484-0-1)
Robert Darby. A surgical temptation: The demonization of the foreskin and the rise of circumcision in Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. (ISBN 0-226-13645-0)
Aaron J. Fink, M.D. Circumcision: A Parent's Decision for Life. Kavanah Publishing Company, Inc., 1988. (ISBN 0-9621347-0-8)
Paul M. Fleiss, M.D. and Frederick Hodges, D. Phil. What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision. New York: Warner Books, 2002

Skim those books

They are all listed in the wikipedia article.


----------



## roxcyn

serg79_ said:


> LOL. Well, you could be right there, although we still use a mixture of imperial and metric measurements in the UK, too.
> But with regard to male circumcision, I'm sure a lot of people here would also see it as something barbaric and unnecessary, just as most United Statesians see female circumcision in that way.
> But Badgrammar's comments about male circumcision being about "hygiene and survival confused: )" whereas female circumcision is supposedly more about "domination/control", are interesting to me.
> I wonder if this is the majority view in the USA?



Exactly, that was the point that I was trying to make .  Thank you for re-stating what I thought .


----------



## heidita

GenJen54 said:


> When a male is circumcised, the skin around the glans (tip of the penis) is removed. This skin is called the foreskin. ..... Others base their decision on advice from a doctor. ...
> Removal of the foreskin has for centuries if not millenia been viewed as a means of helping keep the area clean.
> When a woman is circumcised, it is not the "foreskin" (clitoral hood) that is removed. *It is the ENTIRE clitoris, which would be like hacking off the entire glans (penis tip). There is a huge difference. (Remember Lorena Bobbit?)*
> 
> .


 
I am very surprised to see serg's and roxcyn's posts. Have you bothered to read "lecture" on anatomy? Well, just in case I have copied the main points for you again.


serg79_ said:


> But with regard to male circumcision, I'm sure a lot of people here would also see it as something barbaric and unnecessary, just as most United Statesians see female circumcision in that way.
> But Badgrammar's comments about male circumcision being about "hygiene and survival confused: )" whereas female circumcision is supposedly more about "domination/control", are interesting to me.
> ?


 
I don't know how and in which way one can compare the removing of the foreskin with the complete removal of the clitoris, which would be equivalent to the removal of the penis itself, not just the foreskin. 
Let me tell you, that there is religious group in India, I believe, which practises this barbaric custom. I saw this once on TV and almost fainted. The whole penis is chopped off, literally, unde the most incredible and outragious sanitary surroundings, that is at home and with a meat knife. From then on the mutilated men live (if they survive!!) being regarded as holy or such similar. 
So, may we compare this with removing he foreskin? It's like cutting not your fingernails but cutting the whole finger!



roxcyn said:


> Exactly, that was the point that I was trying to make . Thank you for re-stating what I thought .


Surprising!

I have found to my geat surprsise the link to this. The hindu sect is called Hijra. I have seen the procedure even though in the link it is said that the seldom have a change of sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(India)



> few have genital modifications, although some certainly do, and some consider _nirwaan_ ("castrated") hijras to be the "true" hijras.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Because the title of this thread is, rather misleadingly, called "female circumcision", we now have a discussion comparing two very different processes.

I don't know where the term even originated, because no circumcision is involved in the process.  The preferred, and far more accurate, term is now "female genital mutilation".  Personally, I find "female circumcision" coy, misleading, and a euphemism.

There has been plenty of discussion here about the process itself, but not much about the after-effects.  We haven't discussed the infections, the scarring, the complications in childbirth (including fistulas where the wall of the bowel and/or bladder is torn during labour so that feces and urine constantly leak out the vagina, rendering the mother a pariah in her community).  We haven't talked about the menstrual problems when the vagina is sewn up so tightly that the young girl can't pass clots of blood, which then remain putrifying in the cervix.  We haven't talked about the psychological problems that arise from having people, often outside your family, descend on you when you're ten or so, hold your legs forcibly apart, and hack off parts of you before sewing other parts shut .... without benefit of anaesthetic.  We haven't talked about what sex is like when not only is the size of your vagina reduced, but it's so scarred that it can't expand to accommodate the penis.

To compare the circumcision of a male baby with the mutilation of a young girl is to compare apples and oran-utangs.


----------



## serg79_

heidita said:


> I am very surprised to see serg's and roxcyn's posts. Have you bothered to read "lecture" on anatomy? Well, just in case I have copied the main points for you again.
> 
> 
> I don't know how and in which way one can compare the removing of the foreskin with the complete removal of the clitoris, which would be equivalent to the removal of the penis itself, not just the foreskin.
> Let me tell you, that there is religious group in India, I believe, which practises this barbaric custom. I saw this once on TV and almost fainted. The whole penis is chopped off, literally, unde the most incredible and outragious sanitary surroundings, that is at home and with a meat knife. From then on the mutilated men live (if they survive!!) being regarded as holy or such similar.
> So, may we compare this with removing he foreskin? It's like cutting not your fingernails but cutting the whole finger!
> 
> 
> Surprising!
> 
> I have found to my geat surprsise the link to this. The hindu sect is called Hijra. I have seen the procedure even though in the link it is said that the seldom have a change of sex.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(India)


 
Actually, Heidita, I didn't even compare male to female circumcision (did anyone do that?), although your own comparison of complete removal of the clitoris (which, by the way, seems abhorrent to me) to complete removal of the penis, is not a very accurate one.

My point is that why is male circumcision totally accepted and the usual thing in the USA, whereas in most other developed countries it is seen as, at the least, unnecessary and, at the most, also an act of barbarity?

Here's an interesting page entitled "Myths about Circumcision", which I especially recommend to anyone from the USA: http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_myths.html

Apart from the list of things which male circumcision *doesn't* prevent, I also found the below paragraph very interesting:

_Despite the obviously irrational cruelty of circumcision, the profit incentive in American medical practice is unlikely to allow science or human rights principles to interrupt the *highly lucrative American circumcision industry*. It is now time for European medical associations loudly to condemn the North American medical community for participating in and profiting from what is by any standard a senseless and barbaric sexual mutilation of innocent children. [Paul M. Fleiss. Circumcision. Lancet 1995;345:927.]_


----------



## serg79_

Chaska Ñawi said:


> To compare the circumcision of a male baby with the mutilation of a young girl is to compare apples and oran-utangs.


I've just read all of this thread and *no-one* has compared the circumcision of a male baby to that of a female, although a couple of people have suggested that male circumcision is *also* unneccesary and barbaric, which is a completely valid opinion and one which is held by many medical doctors.
But that it is neither comparing nor saying that male circumcision is as brutal as female circumcision, which obviously it isn't.


----------



## badgrammar

serg79_ said:


> I've just read all of this thread and *no-one* has compared the circumcision of a male baby to that of a female, although a couple of people have suggested that male circumcision is *also* unneccesary and barbaric, which is a completely valid opinion and one which is held by many medical doctors.
> But that it is neither comparing nor saying that male circumcision is as brutal as female circumcision, which obviously it isn't.



To clear up my point earlier about why male circumcision came about as a measure of hygeine:  Long ago, people could not bather regularly, and the area under the foreskin was subject to infection, especially in hot and humid climates.  These infections sometimes spread, and were capable of causing illness and death.  Today, with modern, proper hygeine, this is no longer an issue.  But consider, in the spread of AIDS, it has recently been shown that circumcised males are indeed at an advantage - they are statistically less likey to become infected by the HIV virus.  Interesting....

But female genital mutilation does not go back to a question of hygeine, it is rooted in domination. 

I agree with Chaska that "female circumcision" is a very misleading term, and has nothing to do whatsoever with what happens during female genital mutilation, which can go from a "simple" clitorectomy, to removal of the outer and/or inner labia, and in some cases, the stitching up of the vaginal opening.  So no, circumcision is not an accurate term.


----------



## serg79_

badgrammar said:


> To clear up my point earlier about why male circumcision came about as a measure of hygeine: Long ago, people could not bather regularly, and the area under the foreskin was subject to infection, especially in hot and humid climates. These infections sometimes spread, and were capable of causing illness and death. Today, with modern, proper hygeine, this is no longer an issue. But consider, in the spread of AIDS, it has recently been shown that circumcised males are indeed at an advantage - they are statistically less likey to become infected by the HIV virus. Interesting....


I recommend this page about the HIV/AIDS issue: http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html#anchor539721, 

Also this one about the "protective, sensory and sexual functions" of the foreskin: http://www.norm-uk.org/function.html

And about the supposed hygiene issue:

_Modern, non-religious circumcision began in the Victorian era as a means of deliberately desensitising and denuding the penis in order to discourage masturbation, which doctors then believed was the cause of insanity, epilepsy, hysteria, tuberculosis, short-sightedness, and death._ 

_It is generally agreed that there are no proven physical health benefits from new-born male circumcision [Prof Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer for England; Letter to NORM-UK, 6th September 2000]_

_In reality, non-religious circumcision is being perpetuated for a number of reasons: [...] in some countries, profit for the commercially motivated who can get paid both for the surgery and for 'donating' the amputated foreskin for research._

To sum up: Male circumcision is also considered by some as a form of genital mutilation. In the USA, for some reason, it is accepted as the norm. It seems that Americans have been fed the "hygiene" thing to justify it. I guess that people from countries where they practice female circumcision are also fed similar cultural propaganda. That is my point.

But I am *not *trying to compare the two practices, and would be glad if a moderator could move the posts about male circumcision to a new thread if necessary, thanks.


----------



## maxiogee

--plea--

Can we drop the male circumcision stuff as 
it's not relevant and would appear to be taking 
over what is a rather serious thread with a 
somewhat less-serious divergence.

--/plea--


----------



## serg79_

maxiogee said:


> --plea--
> 
> Can we drop the male circumcision stuff as
> it's not relevant and would appear to be taking
> over what is a rather serious thread with a
> somewhat less-serious divergence.
> 
> --/plea--


Worth mentioning that this thread was brought back to life after nearly a year by someone (from the USA, incidentally) whose main point was:

_I wonder why no one is ever put on trial for mulitation of male children._

But yeah, I agree, let's drop the male circumcision stuff, not because it's not serious, but because it's not relevant to the title of the thread (hence my suggestion to move those posts to a different thread).


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Having put on my mod toque and re-read the thread in light of Tony's and Serge's last posts, I don't think surgery is an option on this particular pair of Siamese twins.

The best I can do is to change the title of the thread to fit the contents, and to see where the discussion leads us.


Speaking now as a forera, I have no problem discussing the two subjects in the same thread .... my issue is with perceptions that they are similar.


----------



## Fleurs263

My understanding of female circumcision is apart from the mutilation of the clitoris,  the opening to the vagina is sewn up to enhance the pleasure a man can gain on his wedding night. I cannot quote any sources on this, but I can say I have worked with many women who have some experience of this.  
 I cannot equate any religious reasons with this act of mutilation ... why if God created man and woman would He/She wish for human beings to get their knives out and attempt to improve on His/Her creation?  Female circumcision is performed on young girls who have little choice and is also generally performed by women.  
It is illegal to perform this act in England and I believe it is now illegal to remove your daughter from this country to have the circumcision performed. It is a child protection issue. 
And as for not criticising other countries for differing behaviours ... why not?  In each country, people  have different standards of acceptability.   Put this way ... some fathers think it appropriate to rape their daughters and impregnate them ... but I think we'd say that's wrong.
People all over the world do things which are wrong ... and to use culture as a cover for a violent act is wrong.  
Let's hope the barbaric act of dismembering a  baby boy's penis will be made illegal too.


----------



## heidita

Fleurs263 said:


> My understanding of female circumcision is apart from the mutilation of the clitoris, the opening to the vagina is sewn up to enhance the pleasure a man can gain on his wedding night. I cannot quote any sources on this, but I can say I have worked with many women who have some experience of this.
> I cannot equate any religious reasons with this act of mutilation ... why if God created man and woman would He/She wish for human beings to get their knives out and attempt to improve on His/Her creation? Female circumcision is performed on young girls who have little choice and is also generally performed by women.
> It is illegal to perform this act in England and I believe it is now illegal to remove your daughter from this country to have the circumcision performed. It is a child protection issue.
> And as for not criticising other countries for differing behaviours ... why not? In each country, people have different standards of acceptability. Put this way ... some fathers think it appropriate to rape their daughters and impregnate them ... but I think we'd say that's wrong.
> People all over the world do things which are wrong ... and to use culture as a cover for a violent act is wrong.
> Let's hope the barbaric act of dismembering a baby boy's penis will be made illegal too.


 
Very nice indeed. I heartfully agree with you. I am shocked that the women in those countries even have the vagina sewn. Incredible!

May I ask: what do you mean by dismembering a penis?


----------



## Fleurs263

Heidita .. 
I was referring to male circumcision, but perhaps used the wrong word ... I meant the mutilation. But now even that doesn't sound right. Circumcision of a baby boy's penis should be made illegal too.


----------



## roxcyn

Fleurs263 said:


> Heidita ..
> I was referring to male circumcision, but perhaps used the wrong word ... I meant the mutilation. But now even that doesn't sound right. Circumcision of a baby boy's penis should be made illegal too.




Amen, I agree with you!


----------



## Brioche

serg79_ said:


> I recommend this page about the HIV/AIDS issue: http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html#anchor539721,
> 
> Also this one about the "protective, sensory and sexual functions" of the foreskin: http://www.norm-uk.org/function.html


 
One should be very careful when using an obvious polemic as a reference.

NORMAL is not a disinterested medical or scientific group. They are pushing a particular barrow.

It's about as selective as a creationist website discussing evolution.


----------



## serg79_

Well, maybe I could have picked a better website to quote from, but you can find the same information on thousands of other sites.
Also, the paragraph I quoted in an earlier post (and which I found on that website) about _"American medical practice is unlikely to allow science or human rights principles to interrupt the highly lucrative American circumcision industry",_ comes from an article written by an American pediatrician in the British medical journal, The Lancet. The figures about circumcision rates in different countries, etc, came from Wikipedia.


----------



## badgrammar

Since the forum topic has been broadened, I'd like to mention that some research came out last year about circumcision and it's role in "protecting" men from the HIV virus.  The links are far too many to list, but if you type into Google "circumcision HIV spread", you will get an idea of why I made my earlier claims.  The very first result is an article from the BBC, and just to quote the first sentence "Circumcision reduces the rate of HIV infections among heterosexual men by around 60%, a study suggests."

The following references are from science-daily, Johns Hopkins Medical, ABC, The Guardian, science-mag, and on and on - nt from activist groups, but from scientific/medical sources.  Apparently circumcision _does_ play a role in protecting males from HIV, and may also protect from other diseases related to the male reproductive system.

I did not have my own son circumcised.  Here in France, few people do that, unless it is for religious reasons.  But I am not out and out against it. I think it has a reason to exist, I would not qualify it as "mutilation" nor compare it to female genital mutilation by any means, I guess I think that is a very extreme viewpoint.  It's a cultural thing, and preferences do vary.  I understand that it may be pushed by the "circumcision industry", whatever that is, but I'm not ready to go out in the streets and protest about it.  It has nothing at all whatsoever to do with what is done to little girls' genitals.  

Serg, I respectfully suggest you look at some of these articles ...

"The finding that circumcision afforded protection against HIV infection, ... "
www.hopkins-aids.edu/publications/report/may00_1.html 

"circumcision in Africa could prevent 2 million new HIV infections and 300000..." abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2177720 

"Male circumcision, a practice thousands of years old, is slowly becoming recognised as a potentially powerful weapon to combat the spread of HIV infection."
www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=49982


----------



## serg79_

Thanks for those links. However, if you type "circumcision HIV myths" into Google you'll also find a large amount of information (from impartial and reputable sources) to counteract the mentioned claims. 

Here is an interesting article from the Kenya Times, entitled: "Demystifying circumcision, HIV infection" http://www.timesnews.co.ke/13oct06/editorials/comm1.html



badgrammar said:


> Apparently circumcision _does_ play a role in protecting males from HIV, and may also protect from other diseases related to the male reproductive system.


"Unlike the US, the medical evidence never convinced the other so-called civilised countries in the world that had stopped the practice of male child circumcision as a medical procedure. The American Academy of Pediatricians has now joined major national pediatrics group in England, Australia, Canada, and Europe by acknowledging that circumcision of newborn boys does not reduce the risk of urinary tract infection".

What the Chief Medical Officer of my own country says:
"It is generally agreed that there are no proven physical health benefits from new-born male circumcision" [Prof Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer for England]



badgrammar said:


> I did not have my own son circumcised. Here in France, few people do that, unless it is for religious reasons. But I am not out and out against it. I think it has a reason to exist, I would not qualify it as "mutilation" nor compare it to female genital mutilation by any means, I guess I think that is a very extreme viewpoint. It's a cultural thing, and preferences do vary. I understand that it may be pushed by the "circumcision industry", whatever that is, but I'm not ready to go out in the streets and protest about it. It has nothing at all whatsoever to do with what is done to little girls' genitals.


As I said, I am not trying to compare the two practices (so I'm glad that the title of the thread was changed), but don't you think that people from places where female circumcision (/genital mutiliation) is practised may also say the exact same thing to you: "It's a cultural thing".
The fact that you don't think male circumcision qualifies as genital mutilation (and even consider this to be a very extreme viewpoint) is greatly influenced by the fact that you are from the USA (and may I also suggest because you are not a male?) where this practice is the norm, whereas in the rest of the "civlised" world it is not.
My original post in this thread was just to ask: why?


----------



## Nunty

I decided to re-open this thread after reading this article today in the online New York Times, apparently quoting _Der Spiegel_. I found it encouraging in an area where encouragement seems thin on the ground.


----------



## Bonjules

Hola todos,
I am, naturally, familiar with most (wouldn't dare say 'all') arguments pro and con (male) circumcision.
But, since most folks seem to like personal testimonials,
here is mine:
It was quite an usettling scream of that baby boy as I
was tightening the 'bell'( a kind of cuff-clamp, it has scews not unlike a medieval thumb screw) down on his little penis. An anguished scream, on the top of his lungs, almost with an animal quality. This 'bell' would slowly separate/squeeze off the foreskin.
'Gee', I thought, you poor thing, there must be a ton of little nerves
in there. 
Afterwards this thought occurred to me. If this baby, then a man, ever finds me out, looks me in the face and says: 'You cut off a piece of my body that might have been dear to me. You did that without an overwhelming necessity and without asking my permission; how do you feel about that? 
What would I be able to say to him?
(I refused to do any more, one was quite enough, thank
you.)


----------



## roxcyn

Amén Bonjules, usted es muy amigable y respecta los derechos de los bebés


----------



## Eloy1988

Male circumcision and female circumcision should both be banned.
They go against the rights of the person, who cannot decide whether they want to have a useful and important part of their body intact.
People who oblige their babies to undergo such operation are insane, monstrous and backward.


----------



## cuchuflete

> *Circumcision can cut the rate of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 50%, results from two African trials show.*  The findings are so striking, the US National Institutes of Health decided it would be unethical to continue and stopped the trials early.
> It supports a previous South African study which reported similar results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A modelling study done by international Aids experts earlier this year showed that male circumcision could avert about six million HIV infections and three million deaths in sub-Saharan Africa.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

^^That is very interesting.


----------



## Bonjules

cuchuflete said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm


 
Cuchu, This is - maybe - interesting, maybe at best confusing the issue of this thread(There are also other studies with different results).
Assuming it is a good study and there is a beneficial
effect in HIV transmission.
1. I'm afraid that making a big issue out of this will
only reinforce magical beliefs of 'invulnerability' in circumcised men, which would be tragic.
2. I am not sure what it would have to do with the issue
here. Nobody says an adult who can consent should be denied any operation they want(unless it is blatantly unethical).
Or are you trying to suggest that based on this information babies should be subjected to the procedure
because possibly in 15 or 2o years HiV might still be a problem? (for them? )
That would be a very strange logic indeed.


----------



## cuchuflete

Have you read the article linked in my post?  Your questions make it appear that you have not.   





Bonjules said:


> Cuchu, This is - maybe - interesting, maybe at best confusing the issue of this thread(There are also other studies with different results).
> Assuming it is a good study and there is a beneficial
> effect in HIV transmission.
> 1. I'm afraid that making a big issue out of this will
> only reinforce magical beliefs of 'invulnerability' in circumcised men, which would be tragic.  The article makes exactly the same point.
> 2. I am not sure what it would have to do with the issue
> here. Nobody says an adult who can consent should be denied any operation they want(unless it is blatantly unethical).
> Or are you trying to suggest that based on this information babies should be subjected to the procedure
> because possibly in 15 or 2o years HiV might still be a problem? (for them? ) I have suggested nothing.  It's raw material to think about.
> That would be a very strange logic indeed.


----------



## Bonjules

cuchuflete said:


> Have you read the article linked in my post? Your questions make it appear that you have not.


 
I read the article again and I still can't find anything
that relates to the main topic of this tread, which is subjecting
babies who can't consent to surgeries with loss/mutilation of bodyparts (while the benefits are at best doubtful and controversial).
To post this in BOLD letters in this fashion is of course 'suggesting something'
and will only cause the circumcision lobby to jump on
it and tell everybody "We told you so!", while confusing the issue here.


----------



## cuchuflete

If you have read the article "again", then you overlooked the obvious twice:  The bold you find so striking is the headline the BBC put on the article, which I copied, as published.  Headlines are supposed to attract attention from readers, so they will look at the following text.

If you want to make more of that than is really there, you may.  

As to the main topic of this thread, I just reviewed the first twenty posts, and didn't find the words baby or babies.  If that's what you want to talk about, fine and dandy.  Go right ahead.  Other participants in the thread, so far, have had a broader scope.  

The anti-circumcision lobby can jump on and off whatever horses it pleases.  The circumcision lobby can do likewise.  I
presented some information that both the lobbies and the undecided may wish to consider before deciding that this is a very simple matter with one and only one 'correct' answer.

I trust the careful reader will not take any single piece of evidence as conclusive.  This thread has already had plenty of information given on both sides of the male circumcision question.  

If you want to present evidence for one side of the argument only, because you have already decided what's right, I wouldn't dream of trying to constrain you.  I am still in learning mode, and don't find ideas 'confusing' just because one or more participants in the thread don't care for them.  

The article made it very clear that male circumcision will not prevent millions of cases of HIV.


----------



## Bonjules

Cuchu,
I really don't understand what you are talking about. What sense would this entire thread make if
it was not about babies/children who have procedures forcibly imposed on them without being able to consent.
Adults can do with their bodies as they please, we are 
not discussing the possible benefits for adults who chose to have this done.
'Self-mutilation' is clearly not the issue here.
(If this is 'restricting' the issue -yes, that is
exactly what the issue is)


----------



## cuchuflete

Bonjules,
We clearly misunderstand one another.  First you limit your remark to babies, then it becomes babies/children.  You seem to be troubled that I quoted and linked to a BBC article that you fear will be misinterpreted or used for some nefarious purposes.  I don't share your concerns.  Those with an axe to grind on either side of the issue will doubtless take bits of fact and opinion, intermix and distort them.  
I totally fail to understand your objection to putting additional information on the table for consideration.  

Female genital mutilation is an atrocity.

Male circumcision is not such a clear case.  You seem to have  scientific training, so your discomfort at putting information out for examination is surprising.


----------



## Bonjules

cuchuflete
 
Male circumcision is not such a clear case. You seem to have scientific training said:
			
		

> Cuchu, don't you see, I have no problem in general with you 'putting information out for examination', however, I do habe a problem with putting it out
> 1. in a sensationalist manner (most folks will not read the fine print anyway)
> 2. putting it out in such a way that it can only confuse
> and distract from the topic of this thread, which is an important human rights issue(violation of physical/bodily integrity), most of all (which is why I keep beating up on this, really).
> Contrary to what you obviously believe, I do not want
> to hide these findings; in fact, great monies should be
> spent on disseminating them and using the info, working with the men to reduce the incidence, if the experts feel that in the end
> it will not be counterproductive.
> 
> Looking at the intent of the thread (as I can only reasonably interpret it), this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
> 
> Maybe you should ask yourself very clearly ( and the
> fact that you say 'not such a clear case' leaves us guessing a bit what you are really thinking) do you feel
> it justified to do this to a baby boy on the uncertain
> prospect of a future urinary infection (I never saw one
> in boys in clinical practice, circumcised or not) or on the possibility he may
> in the future engage in risky sex?
> But you are certainly not alone in confusing/mixing up clinical
> and human rights issues, doctors do it all the time.


----------

