ritual circumcision.

Terry

right or wrong?

i'm throwing this in here because the thread about the "black nigerian man" seems to have taken a turn in this direction.
it is also a political matter because it involves a conflict between african/ middle eastern laws and the laws of this country.

ok, so we are all aware that it is a ritualistic custom in judaism to circumcise young boys. it is also ritualistic among certain tribes in some african countries to carry this out on both women and men.

i find the act to be utterly reprehensible and torturous as it is caried out on infants who have no say in the matter.
as far as i'm concened, these rituals as barbaric acts that have risen from superstition and that they are still carried out in our so called enlightened days are completely sickening.

it has been documented in this country that certain african people have been travelling the country and carrying out this act without a medical license and it has resulted in the death of children because it was not carried out properly. it has also been said that this act is carried out on young girls so that they will never enjoy intercourse or be able to give birth to children.

thoughts...

samb

You shouldn't lump male circumcision carried out properly in with female circumcision. They are very different things.

Other than that I share your outrage on female circumcision.

Terry

allow me to make myself clear. i am totally against male circimcision too.
just because it happens to men , doesn't make it right. those young boys are still going to be in a lot of pain.
i really don't care if it is done "properly" or not. it's still a barbaric and archaic ritual that should not happen.
i am not a religious person. i have the greatest of respect for those who dearly believe in a god. i would never try to take that away from them. thing is, butchering a child because of a 5,000 year old ritual is completely wrong and should not be allowed under any modern law. **** pc up its ass.

Wibbs

samb wrote:

You shouldn't lump male circumcision carried out properly in with female circumcision. They are very different things.

Just because it's more acceptable and medicalised in our society does not make it right. FGM is acceptable to those societies who practice it. While the extreme of the female form is certainly more aggressive, non medically necessary procedures on infants should not be done IMHO. The foreskin has many functions and has evolved for a reason. Circumcision destroys that functionality.

The interesting thing about both forms is that the excuses/reasons for performing the ritual are the same. It's cleaner, the opposite sex prefer it, it's ordained by God, it's tradition, my mother/father had it done, so therefore.... If one is totally beyond the pale, why not the other?

rubadub

I see far more similarities between the two than differences. Both unneccesary surgery (foreskin can be stretched if too tight). Both taking away from sexual pleasure as the clitoris and foreskin are both full of nerve endings. There are a lot of men that undergo foreskin restoration, usually for sexual reasons.

If it was vice versa and the female circumcision was more commonplace in western countries then people would probably view them vice versa too, i.e. all claiming male circumcision was barbaric and allowing refugees to stay here incase their sons would be forced to undergo it back home.

Hagar

Wibbs wrote:

FGM is acceptable to those societies who practice it.

I would wonder how many females find it acceptable?
But then in the societies where it is practised females aren't allowed opinions...

Wibbs

rubadub wrote:

Both taking away from sexual pleasure as the clitoris and foreskin are both full of nerve endings

As is the glans of the penis which drys out and becomes keratinised(tougher) after surgery, lessoning sexual response. In fact the operation in the past was used to curb *ahem* self abuse as it was thought to reduce pleasure in the man. It can also reduce pleasure in the woman from a lubrication standpoint(I can say no more:D ) The function of the foreskin is still not fully understood, but it's obviously there for a reason.

Hagar wrote:

I would wonder how many females find it acceptable?

Quite a few in that cultural context. For a start it's nearly always performed by women, as those societies wouldn't allow a man to do so. There are also a growing number of men who object to the fact that they were circumcised as infants or had the procedure performed later for a medical condition for which less invasive methods may prove equally valid.

grubber

julep wrote:

allow me to make myself clear. i am totally against male circimcision too.
just because it happens to men , doesn't make it right. those young boys are still going to be in a lot of pain.
i really don't care if it is done "properly" or not. it's still a barbaric and archaic ritual that should not happen.
i am not a religious person. i have the greatest of respect for those who dearly believe in a god. i would never try to take that away from them. thing is, butchering a child because of a 5,000 year old ritual is completely wrong and should not be allowed under any modern law. **** pc up its ass.

I agree completely. Our laws and law enforcement agencies need to confront these barbaric rituals.

Victor

julep wrote:

it has been documented in this country that certain african people have been travelling the country and carrying out this act without a medical license and it has resulted in the death of children because it was not carried out properly.

Other than the one case in Waterford, can you reference any of these "documented" cases?

it has also been said that this act is carried out on young girls so that they will never enjoy intercourse or be able to give birth to children.

How does it stop them having children? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Terry

Victor wrote:

Other than the one case in Waterford, can you reference any of these "documented" cases?

only from what i have read in papers. can you supply links detailing that it doesn't happen?

How does it stop them having children? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Women and girls are not informed of these health risks. In a study performed in Egypt, survey data shows ninety- nine percent of the respondants were not informed of the severe health risks (Gallo 1996). Another study in Nigeria, with survey data from over 400 women, also indicates a need for educational reform. Only 30 percent realized there was a risk of infection, 17 percent realized the risks of birth complications, and 5 percent realized the risk of extreme blood loss (Ebong 1997).

source
can you see how that would interfere with women having children? i can.

aside from you obvious baiting, do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?

shuushh

i dont think the act is carried out on females to prevent them from giving birth to children though its not the intent of the act however because the majority of people who carry these acts out are not trained professionals you get problems like birth complications etc.

when any circumcision is carried out by a person who isnt a trained professional i would consider it a serious criminal act. its a very strange ritual and i dont fully understand the reasoning behind male circumcision

Terry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_circumcision#History_of_circumcision

brief explanation.

luckat

Male circumcision is a hygienic thing: men who are circumcised are less vulnerable to diseases from AIDS to cancers of the penis, and women having sex with them are less likely to contract womb cancer. This is because of smegma, a waxy substance that can build up under the glans.

Female "circumcision" is purely an attempt to stop women having sexual desire by removing the clitoris and the inner and outer lips of the vulva. It has no other function, and is very dangerous, exposing women to infection.

Wibbs

luckat wrote:

Male circumcision is a hygienic thing: men who are circumcised are less vulnerable to diseases from AIDS to cancers of the penis, and women having sex with them are less likely to contract womb cancer. This is because of smegma, a waxy substance that can build up under the glans.

Not a great argument tbh. The link between circumcision and AIDS protection is a grey area. The studies in Africa as an example, didn't initially take into account the religious practices of those who performed it(less sexual partners etc). I can see where keratisation of the glans would prevent the passage of the virus however. That said that's like removing the teeth to prevent tooth decay when easier preventatives are around.

Also in the US where circumcision is nearly total, it hasn't reduced the AIDS transmission rate as it can be argued that because of less sensitivity in the male more risky sexual practices occur(anal etc), where tearing is more likely to occur. "Hygiene" as an argument of course presupposes that the penis is dirty, when it has evolved to be self cleaning. FGM is often falsely said by it's proponents to be "cleaner".

Cancer of the penis is incredibly rare. None of the above is due to smegma btw. It is a natural substance released by the body. It may only become an issue if proper hygiene is not practised. Again I refer you to my point re teeth. If you don't brush and get cavities, that's not the teeths fault and you wouldn't remove them as a precaution.

I agree with you re FGM and sexual pleasure, but many doctors in the past, in the US and elsewhere, regarded MGM as reducing male pleasure and masturbation(frowned upon at the time).

Victor

julep wrote:

only from what i have read in papers. can you supply links detailing that it doesn't happen?

Ah, I found a quote from the Irish Times "A child did not die today". Forgive me, but you are mistaken if you think newspapers print stories about what didn't happen.

source
can you see how that would interfere with women having children? i can.

Interfere yes, prevent absolutely, no.

aside from you obvious baiting, do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?

Honesty.

grubber

luckat wrote:

Male circumcision is a hygienic thing: men who are circumcised are less vulnerable to diseases from AIDS to cancers of the penis, and women having sex with them are less likely to contract womb cancer. This is because of smegma, a waxy substance that can build up under the glans.

So you are saying that man can improve on nature. Or is this another example of the arrogance of our species?

Wibbs

Cancers of the external female genitalia occur also. Women who've been "circumcised" would be much less likely to suffer same. Does that make it a little more OK now?

Stark

Someone made the great comparison between cutting off your foreskin to keep your penis clean and cutting off your eyelids to keep your eyeballs clean I wouldn't want it done to me.

I still think FGM is in a whole different league to male circumcision though.

Interestingly enough, I notice the article sourced by juliep proposed a "non-harmful" method of circumcision for females.

The_Minister

luckat wrote:

Male circumcision is a hygienic thing: men who are circumcised are less vulnerable to diseases from AIDS to cancers of the penis, and women having sex with them are less likely to contract womb cancer. This is because of smegma, a waxy substance that can build up under the glans.

It is also called dick cheese.
You are meant to clean yourself every now and then.

The_Minister

Firespinner wrote:

It is also called dick cheese.
You are meant to clean yourself every now and then.

Don't ask me for instructions.

carveone

This being Ireland and not the US, I doubt whether you'll get much argument julep. This is something I've grown to feel strongly about as it's a mystery to my why, in this of all countries, I had it done to me. (born 1971). I have no idea what the percentage is in this country, but I know that an Irish doctor these days will not perform them. This is on guys of course.

Couple of points:

Why? It's totally pointless. I mean wtf! Why don't we just go around thinking of bits to lop off our children. Take the ear lobes off, that'll stop those damn teenagers wearing earrings like girlys...

As far as I know, there's a 2% chance of complications. Death is pretty rare though. Goody. In the US, the operation is done with a kind of guillotine; if the doctor is an idiot, he/she'll take off more than just the foreskin - losing the tip is not uncommon. Some guys have had to be raised as girls.
Maternal bonding is affected as well - babies won't nurse. Unnecessary medical operations on infants are barbaric. And I can't imagine it does much for a doctor's malpractice insurance premium either. That's why it doesn't happen here anymore.

I believe it was done here because parents were simply unable to deal with telling their kids how to wash themselves.

Some doctors in the US have got mothers who insist on circumcising their child to witness the process. That works really really well. One said she'd never heard screaming like that - up into the ultrasonic. Nice. (Can't remember where I read that)

Wibbs obviously knows a lot about this too. From people in the US I've spoken to, US doctors were highly variable in their procedure. Generally, the more religious the doctor, the more foreskin would be removed. To the point where sexual pleasure was close to nil. The US is appalling in this regard - doctors will circumcise without consent (actually they assume consent, expressing surprise afterwords). Any medical journal articles expressing a negative attitude towards circumcision are not published. They're really weird over there as regards sexual matters.

The court case with the nigerian guy who was circumcising infants and one died stunned the hell out of me. The guy walked away after the judge said the jury had to take into account his tribal traditions or something. Pardon me? It wasn't long ago in Zambia (I grew up there), that a women would drown her child if the top teeth came in first. Are we to allow that here now? The judge acted illegally in my opinion and should be struck off.

At the time, Kevin Myers was of the opinion that it was because it was a male child, noone gave a crap. Only women are affected by cancer, genital mutilation, work-life balance, child rearing, rape, home violence and child murder; guys can just piss off. Myers tends to be extreme, but he's probably right.

Worse, that's a legal precedent - now there's one law for Irish people and another for immigrants. Excellent, female GM is now a matter of time here.

Man, I rant on :rolleyes:

Wibbs

Good qualitay rant mind

lego

Genital Mutilation/Circimcision (Same thing to many westerners except americans) was a very primitive, backward form of preventative hygiene, In the same way wealthy aristocrats shaved their heads and wore wigs to avoid getting headlice or other scalp infections/infestations.

We don't need to shave our heads to avoid headlice, we just need good hygiene. Same goes for circumcision, we don't need it, we just need good hygiene. The reason some cultures have their children circumcized is the same reason that the Irish government puts fluoride in our water supply. It is a presumption of stupidity. The culture that circumcizes their children presumes that the children will have poor hygiene and therefore the best thing to do is have them circumcized. The Irish government (unlike most of the EU) presumes that we are all stupid bog paddies too busy picking cow **** out of our ears to have noticed an amazing invention: toothpaste. So they decided to put (the potentially harmful substance) fluoride in our water, in much the same way the owner of a dog mixes the dogs medicine in with its food, and the dog knows no better.

Male/Female Genital Mutilation/Circimcision for reasons other than medical should be illegalized under anti-paedophilia legislation. It should not matter what ritualistic/religious reasons people may have for it. They should not be allowed to do that to a child. Once that child has reached a pre-defined age of consent (eg: 15,16,18 maybe), they should be able to choose whatever they want to do to their bodies eg: piercings, circumcision etc, but not before the predefined age of consent.

Genital Mutilation/Circimcision sounds like something Fred West would do to his children. It is a cruel, possibly sadistic and barbaric practice. Just because someone says it is a "cultural tradition" does not mean that we should accept or even tolerate it in a modern civil society.

~my two cents