Male Genital Mutilation - why is this allowed?

jobbridge4life

pjohnson wrote: »

I dont think foreskins are to blame.

Nor do I to be fair but I was just making the point that Lawred's comments about HIV in Ireland are misleading.

lawred2

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Record numbers of people diagnosed with HIV

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/record-numbers-of-people-diagnosed-with-hiv-1.3079987

Relative numbers. Far from an epidemic.

Please don't suggest that these people would be better served circumcised than throwing on widely available johnnies?

Again Ireland and sub Saharan are not the same where public health is concerned.

lawred2

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Nor do I to be fair but I was just making the point that Lawred's comments about HIV in Ireland are misleading.

You think Ireland has an AIDS epidemic?

Samuel T. Cogley

I'm not really keeping upto date with all the replies in thread but on the HIV point, circumcision has only shown to be helpful in heterosexual contact. Homosexual contact which I believe most of Ireland's new HIV infections I simply don't know - apologies if someone else had posted something regarding it being beneficial in homosexual contact situations.

greencap

pjohnson wrote: »

I dont think foreskins are to blame.

dont blame it on the sunshine, don't blame it on the moonlight.

Jimoslimos

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Assuming Bluestratos is not trolling, his brainwashing shows why the men's rights movements is needed.

This is exactly why I can rarely take men's rights movements seriously. Always needing to draw some sort of tenuous equivalence with women (who they feel wronged or cheated out of resources by). People campaigning to stop FGM, breast cancer, etc and instead of supporting those movements start whinging "but what about the men??". It's not a zero-sum game when it comes to deciding on men's or women's rights/causes.

kylith wrote: »

They're really not the same. Circumcision removes skin. This means that when **** or having sex the glans cannot move inside the skin of the penis. This necessitates that lube be used.

Never had this problem

kylith wrote: »

What surprises me is that some people will oppose and cite that the fetus can feel pain, and then allow their children to be circumcised without anaesthetic (that's right folks, they do it without anaesthetic) on the basis that babies don't feel pain.

pickarooney wrote: »

It's a sick practice, perpetuated by bull**** merchants and their ludicrous 'facts' about medical benefits, stone age religious mumbo jumbo and a bizarre cultural inertia.

Jaysus! Things must have really deteriorated at Temple St Children's Hospital!

This is Ireland, I doubt you'll find any significant portion of boys circumcised who didn't have it done for purely medical reasons (myself included).

OneOfThem Stumbled

pjohnson wrote: »

I dont think foreskins are to blame.

Foreskins and er.. rectums... are more susceptible to the HIV virus than er... other body parts. It seems that foreskins attempt to fight potential viruses and bacteria, which seeing that HIV works by hijacking helper T cells, gives it a means of infecting the host. The corollary to that is that foreskins probably offer protection against other venereal diseases. Seeing that a condom will give vastly greater protection against HIV than circumcision, it would seem odd to advocate it on those grounds (unless you want to make tons of babies with random strangers).

Jimoslimos wrote: »

This is Ireland, I doubt you'll find any significant portion of boys circumcised who didn't have it done for purely medical reasons (myself included).

I think OP was referring to America, where it was introduced as a routine operation to improve the moral fibre of men on the grounds that self-satisfaction could lead to "cancer of the womb, urinary diseases, nocturnal emissions, impotence, epilepsy, insanity, and mental and physical debility" as well as "dimness of vision" and moral corruption.<ref>

pickarooney

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Record numbers of people diagnosed with HIV

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/record-numbers-of-people-diagnosed-with-hiv-1.3079987

Foreigners and gays, Joe, bringing their AIDS over here.

Discodog

I was circumcised very early in life for medical reasons. I have no recollection, have never felt any pain & I am really grateful

pickarooney

Murrisk wrote: »

True. The most mild form, I'd only oppose as much as I oppose MGM. I'm against MGM and the most mild form of FGM. Unnecessary procedures on humans who haven't fully deceloped their immune systems and that can be botched? No thanks.

But it does slightly annoy me when people take umbrage at there being more revulsion at the more invasive forms of FGM than MGM despite the invasive forms of FGM being objectively much worse than MGM. It's a misguided plea for equality in something that isn't equal for men and women.

Well, that's one way to look at it. Another is that FGM isn't generally something that affects anyone you know whereas MGM is widespread and culturally accepted in the West.

It's great to feel all superior to the savages cutting up girls but uncomfortable when the light is shone on practices close to home which, while certainly less barbaric, are based on disturbing puritanical attitudes.

pickarooney

kylith wrote: »

Even if that's true there is no amount of circumcision that will have the same protective effect as using a condom short of removing the entire penis.

The only reason that the small amount of protection offered by circumcision is of any use at all in Africa is because of the influence of religious groups opposing the use of condoms.

Hmm, I'm not really on board with this infantilising approach to Africans which blames white religions discouraging condom use for the high incidence of HIV when the same religions preach monogamy and abstinence.

Murrisk

pickarooney wrote: »

Well, that's one way to look at it. Another is that FGM isn't generally something that affects anyone you know whereas MGM is widespread and culturally accepted in the West.

It's great to feel all superior to the savages cutting up girls but uncomfortable when the light is shone on practices close to home which, while certainly less barbaric, are based on disturbing puritanical attitudes.

I don't really think of Ireland as a country that is fine with male circumcision outside of medical reasons, most people seem a bit repulsed by it or, at best, bemused. It doesn't happen much in Ireland so there isn't really anything much to examine closer to home.

jackofalltrades

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Nicking was proposed as an alternativeto FGM butchery that might satisfy whatever barbaric cultural norm that demanded it, in the hope it might spare the girls the ensuing sexual/hydrological/bacteriological issues that a mutilation would provide, not as a recommended procedure

Yes I know why it was proposed thanks.

Cool the hypersensitive sexual discrimination cogs

So I'll take that as your refusal to address the core point then.

suicide_circus

pickarooney wrote: »

Foreigners and gays, Joe, bringing their AIDS over here.

Not exclusively but south american homosexuals are certainly a big factory in the current spike in ireland.

Alizrian Crimson

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That's a wholly different argument so, not gynaecologists are recommending/ advocating for a mild form of FGM for the sake of it.

If it will protect girls from being butchered by rusty razor blades in a squalid kip, and prevent them having a lifetime of urinary infections, and avoid sexual enjoyment issues by replacing it with a "ceremonial nick", I'd say it's the lesser of two evils.

It's not the right approach. Female circumcision needs to be stamped out completely. But I want to know what those who think male circumcision is no big deal think of it, would they be in favour?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Record numbers of people diagnosed with HIV

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/record-numbers-of-people-diagnosed-with-hiv-1.3079987

Likely because of apps like Grinder and homosexual men not using condoms as much as they should.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

This is exactly why I can rarely take men's rights movements seriously. Always needing to draw some sort of tenuous equivalence with women (who they feel wronged or cheated out of resources by). People campaigning to stop FGM, breast cancer, etc and instead of supporting those movements start whinging "but what about the men??". It's not a zero-sum game when it comes to deciding on men's or women's rights/causes.


Never had this problem

Truly bizarre comment. I am completely opposed to both male and female circumcision. It's not a competition. By your logic I shouldn't be concerned about prisoner rape because rape is also an issue for women.

kylith

pickarooney wrote: »

Hmm, I'm not really on board with this infantilising approach to Africans which blames white religions discouraging condom use for the high incidence of HIV when the same religions preach monogamy and abstinence.

They preached the same here and we still wound up having enough pregnant single women that they basically set up a cottage industry. Had HIV been in the country at the time we may well have wound up with an epidemic.

Yes, monogamy and abstinence are the best way of halting the spread of all venereal diseases but, people being people, this doesn't happen so discouraging the second best way of stopping the spread of disease is hardly responsible behaviour.

Alizrian Crimson

For those wondering why mgm is normalised, a doctor in Canada conducted a mri scan on an infant being circumcised and found the circumcision permanently altered the infants's brain. Then:

"Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, according to their dubious interpretation of the ethical regulations, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was prohibited. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action."

http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm

So obviously there are powerful people out there with a vested interest in keeping mgm legal.

Jimoslimos

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

For those wondering why mgm is normalised, a doctor in Canada conducted a mri scan on an infant being circumcised and found the circumcision permanently altered the infants's brain. Then:

"Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, according to their dubious interpretation of the ethical regulations, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was prohibited. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action."

http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm

So obviously there are powerful people out there with a vested interest in keeping mgm legal.

I'm gonna take a sceptical view of that TBH. Any research trial involving children is usually fraught with complexities over consent, etc. I'd say that's more likely the reason for discipline. No reputable journal would publish anything that didn't pass the required ethical approvals - including the internal hospital ethics committee.

Anyway there's an awful lot of quackery and dubious conclusions drawn from the results of fMRI scans. It's a very grey (excuse the pun) area

jobbridge4life

lawred2 wrote: »

Relative numbers. Far from an epidemic.

Please don't suggest that these people would be better served circumcised than throwing on widely available johnnies?

Again Ireland and sub Saharan are not the same where public health is concerned.

I didn't suggest either of those things. In fact I had already clarified before you posted the above that I didn't, so I think you are being disingenuous.

lawred2 wrote: »

You think Ireland has an AIDS epidemic?

No, but then that is not all you said Lawred is it?

...

We do not have a HIV problem in Ireland

...

To which I replied, that Ireland has rapidly increasing HIV diagnoses and subsequently provided a link corroborating my point. I'd consider that a problem wouldn't you?

jobbridge4life

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Likely because of apps like Grinder and homosexual men not using condoms as much as they should.

I think it is significantly more complex than that, but cheers for singling out us queers. That said I unfortunately cannot entirely disagree with you.

Regardless, I wasn't suggesting that this increase had to do with circumcision I was just trying to point out that Lawred was incorrect to claim that Ireland had no HIV problem.

The J Stands for Jay

BlueStratos wrote: »

@Alizrian Crimson
To answer your questions.
I do not consider circumcision to be mutilation. I consider FGM to be mutilation. Not the same things.
My wife and I decided it was better to get our sons done as babies, rather than later (as I was at 25) as they babies heal faster than adults from the procedure.
I respect you are against circumcision, and can understand your view. I would not wish to change that, and certainly would not try to impose my view on you.
My wife most probably would, as she is more pro-circumcision than I. However she also accepts that her sister was influenced by her views; but some of her friends think she talks nonsense.
I am not bothered either way to be honest with you; each to their own. Some women prefer circumcised men, some men prefer women with big boobs etc. That is just the way it is, we all have our own preferences in life.
I think its better, you don't; etc.

Where is this notion that babies heal faster coming from?

Roger Hassenforder

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Yes I know why it was proposed thanks.

So I'll take that as your refusal to address the core point then.

Is the core issue someone claiming some gynocologists are recommending FGM to support their contention that it's somehow beneficial or, has some merit and wondering where the outrage was, but it turned out to be something different, or something else?

You might have to remind me of your core point again.

Of the great outraged here, I wonder who among them how were actually tidied up as a baby. A lot of people seem to be excercisng themselves greatly on behalf of others, who in the main, don't seem to really give a toss (pardon the pun) , and are attempting to draw a parallel between FGM and circumcision, or MGM as they call it their attempts to create parity.

Assuming you're male, were you snipped as a baby?

The J Stands for Jay

BlueStratos wrote: »

@Wibbs
To answer your questions.
No, I do not agree with FGM. It is illegal.
I do agree with circumcision. It is legal.

A short while back when the government accidentally legalised a load of recreational drugs for 24 hours, did you agree with doing a load of coke and Es then change your mind the next day?

oneilla

BlueStratos wrote: »

@wench
Yes, I do. And I think it is a parents right to force their respective views on their children until they are 18 and adult.
At which point they are entitled to their own views, such as voting in elections, smoking and drinking, etc.
My wife and I prefer it, and so we had our son's done; as we think it's best. Our views, our children, forcing our views on them.
Neither my wife nor I have a problem with that. We force our views on them about many things.
They are both teenagers now, and have never expressed any problem or resentment whatsoever about it. I would describe their respective views on circumcision as the same as religion and politics really; apathetic on all accounts.
What others choose to do (or not) with their children is their business, I don't really mind either way.
My wife is more pro-circumcision though, but I don't really mind that either. Each to their own really.

BlueStratos wrote: »

@Alizrian Crimson
I am aware of the risks. One can take my word for it I personally researched these when I decided to have it done at 25.
with regards to our sons, my wife also researched the risks; and we chose a very good surgeon for that reason.
I had no problems, and neither did our two sons. There are some risks with surgery, that is a given.
To answer your other question regarding why is it OK to cut little boys and not girls?
Well it's the law. FGM is illegal, and rightly so. Circumcision is legal though, and rightly so.
If the latter was illegal such as the former, then of course I wouldn't have it done myself, nor would I have our son's done either.
There is a difference between FGM and circumcision; and I think that is obvious, so I won't clarify my point further.
My wife and I think all sons should be done. But we also accept that many people don't agree with this view; and that is fine too.
Like I said before, I don't wish to change your view on it at all. My wife would do though as she is more pro-circumcision than I.

BlueStratos wrote: »

My wife wanted our sons done mainly so they would look the same as myself.
She thinks it looks better. I think if women are honest, most of them do too.
I think for mothers opting to have their sons done, the real main reason is they prefer the look; rather than cleanliness or medical benefits.
I don't think this should be a problem, the motivation behind why a parents chooses to get their son's done.
Personally I don't have a problem with someone choosing to have cosmetic surgery; whether its a nose job, boob job, labiaplasty, circumcision, etc.
That is their choice to do so, and I respect that. In the case of circumcision; then I think yes, the mother should have the right to choose what she prefers for her son.
Maybe my wife is more pro-circumcision than most women, but I think when women have experienced a circumcised one then they also prefer it and tend to go that way in their views too.
I know her sister has become more pro-circumcision after having her son done. Maybe that is just what happens. Women do it then prefer it, and influence others.
But I don't think wanting ones sons done as it looks better is any less valid reason than say thinking it is cleaner or has medical benefits. The reason isn't so important.

BlueStratos wrote: »

My last two boyfriends were both circumcised...and both Irish. The first one got it done as a baby for medical reasons. The second one had to get it done when he was in his 20s (I was with him at the time). Both reasons was because the skin was too tight around the foreskin and was incredibly uncomfortable....especially if they got an erection. One of the guys foreskin actually ripped while we were having sex, which is why he got it done in his 20s.

From a girls point of view, I actually prefer it circumcised!

@Ashbx
I think most Irish girls that have experience it also prefer it (although might be too shy to admit it). So thanks for being open about your view.
So would you get your son's done too? Or prefer your partner was?
This is something my wife finds ironic. Often women that have strong views against circumcision have never actually seen one, or experienced it. Often those that have, actually prefer it. I find men to be more apathetic about it generally, but women seem to have stronger views for and against it; maybe not so much when it comes to partners, but for their preference on getting sons done.
I was the first boyfriend my wife had that was circumcised, and she became pro-circumcision after that really. I think that is often the case, a girl experiences it; and then realises she actually prefers it.

BlueStratos wrote: »

@zedhead
No, my wife wouldn't be OK with our daughter having a labiaplasty (if I wanted it). I would not want this either.
No, I would not be OK with parents choosing to give their child a nose job.
Circumcision is a different case to the above, and the law reflects this.
Yes, I think it is Ok for parents to choose to have their sons circumcised; for whatever reason, religious/cultural/medical/aesthetic.
I think it looks better, my wife concurs, and so we had our son's done. We are both happy with that decision, our sons are apathetic about it really.
My wife doesn't think there is anything wrong with a woman getting a labiaplasty/nose job/boob job, for aesthetic reasons when adult.
But of course doesn't think this should be a parents decision! And certainly not done to a child!
OK maybe a poor sample, basing what I am saying on my wife and her sister; but I am just giving the perspective from Irish women in their 30's for real. Rather than social media/social justice warrior views etc.
I think, and they concur on this; that often Irish women that have experienced both actually prefer circumcised. And then they go on to have their sons done as a result.
For example, my wife had never seen one before myself; but preferred it and got our sons done. Then her sister did the same; and so the trend goes on I think.
Her sister now tells her friends she prefers it and advises them to get partners and sons done etc.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that, as their opinions and preferences are based on their own personal experiences.
Maybe my wife is very pro-circumcision compared to her sister who is more moderate I suppose. But each to their own.
I don't mind what someone else's views are on the matter, I just know what I prefer really.

All this talk of doing sons and having sons "done" was very weird to me however...

BlueStratos wrote: »

@tupenny
Well I agree with you to a degree. I am more moderate or apathetic about it really.
I mean, I didn't really care if her sister had her sons done etc. That is none of my business.
But she seems to be more pro-circumcision, in fact I sometimes wonder if she has developed a fetish for it or something.
I prefer it, she prefers it, and that is fine. But I don't think people should force their views on to another person really. But she likes to influence her girlfriends and sister etc.
I really don't know if this is a common thing that happens to women or not, I mean they experience it, then become a real fan of it, or develop a strong preference for it?
For example last summer we were on a naturist holiday in France, and she commented that she liked seeing all the circumcised boys walking around; which I did think was a weird thing to say.
I don't know really, maybe some women just have a real thing for it; in the same way as some men prefer big boobs etc.

Your wife likes to look at circumcised boys? Either you're having a laugh or there is something else going on here :eek:

Widdershins

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Is the core issue someone claiming some gynocologists are recommending FGM to support their contention that it's somehow beneficial or, has some merit and wondering where the outrage was, but it turned out to be something different, or something else?

You might have to remind me of your core point again.

Of the great outraged here, I wonder who among them how were actually tidied up as a baby. A lot of people seem to be excercisng themselves greatly on behalf of others, who in the main, don't seem to really give a toss (pardon the pun) , and are attempting to draw a parallel between FGM and circumcision, or MGM as they call it their attempts to create parity.

Assuming you're male, were you snipped as a baby?

These discussions are always the same. Essentially people telling other people how they're supposed to feel and informing them of what they think they must be experiencing or not experiencing. Any protest or dissent from circumcised men is met with ''oh but you don't know what you lost'' and if they chose circumcision as an adult ''well you must be in denial then.''

Attempting to dramatise or vilify the procedure's effects really robs their argument of credibility, imo.

Roger Hassenforder

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm

Nothwithstanding the small test population,



strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumstraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber.... the doctor used a plastic bell with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anesthetic was used.
The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma"


No sh1t the infant was subjected to some trauma, water boarding would have been less stressful. Fcukers should have been struck off. Mengle wouldn't have attempted that.

myshirt

Let's take this to the streets.

Alizrian Crimson

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I think it is significantly more complex than that, but cheers for singling out us queers. That said I unfortunately cannot entirely disagree with you.

Regardless, I wasn't suggesting that this increase had to do with circumcision I was just trying to point out that Lawred was incorrect to claim that Ireland had no HIV problem.

No need to be offended, just pointing out the problem. HIV is far greater concern for gays than straights.

Widdershins wrote: »

These discussions are always the same. Essentially people telling other people how they're supposed to feel and informing them of what they think they must be experiencing or not experiencing. Any protest or dissent from circumcised men is met with ''oh but you don't know what you lost'' and if they chose circumcision as an adult ''well you must be in denial then.''

Attempting to dramatise or vilify the procedure's effects really robs their argument of credibility, imo.

If you have no issue with male circumcision then you cannot complain about female circumcision that only involves the removal of the clitoral hood.

Alizrian Crimson

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Nothwithstanding the small test population,



strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumstraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber.... the doctor used a plastic bell with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anesthetic was used.
The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma"


No sh1t the infant was subjected to some trauma, water boarding would have been less stressful. Fcukers should have been struck off. Mengle wouldn't have attempted that.

So you think the average boy in Africa gets anesthetic? And it's only relatively recently anesthetic was used for boys in the west.

Starting to see why I'm against it?

Widdershins

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

No need to be offended, just pointing out the problem. HIV is far greater concern for gays than straights.



If you have no issue with male circumcision then you cannot complain about female circumcision that only involves the removal of the clitoral hood.

I have some objection to unnecessary procedures, but you really need to inform yourself about FGM. That's shockingly belittling.

Roger Hassenforder

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

So you think the average boy in Africa gets anesthetic? And it's only relatively recently anesthetic was used for boys in the west.

Starting to see why I'm against it?

I doubt it
I also doubt the average girl gets it.
"At least" an infant boy after the snip gets to be cuddled by his evil mother rather than being left languish strapped to an apparatus.

this article was introduced to demonstrate a child is neurologically damaged by the procedure. I posit the child could have been damaged by the whole experience which was akin to torture.

out of curiosity, were you snipped?

Alizrian Crimson

Widdershins wrote: »

I have some objection to unnecessary procedures, but you really need to inform yourself about FGM. That's shockingly belittling.

Why? There are different degrees of female circumcision. If you have no problems with male circumcision you can not be against female circumcision that 'only' requires the removal of the clitoral hood. Both were once used to discourage masturbation in children by werido Dr Kellog. I am against any modification of a child's genitals unless there are very sound medical reasons.

Also, do you think every woman who has been cut hates it? Many will accept it as part of their society and will resent westerners for telling them it's wrong. Same as some westerners think male circumcision is ok and resent being told its wrong.

Both are wrong.

Alizrian Crimson

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I doubt it
I also doubt the average girl gets it.
"At least" an infant boy after the snip gets to be cuddled by his evil mother rather than being left languish strapped to an apparatus.

this article was introduced to demonstrate a child is neurologically damaged by the procedure. I posit the child could have been damaged by the whole experience which was akin to torture.

out of curiosity, were you snipped?

No, I am intact. Thank you parents for not mutilating me.

Widdershins

That's enough internet for one day.

Alizrian Crimson

Widdershins wrote: »

That's enough internet for one day.

I suspect your issue is with a man pointing out the hypocrisy involved with mgm and fgm.

Not having a go with you personally. You've been conditioned to think one is ok and one is not when both are clearly wrong.

Depp

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

No, I am intact. Thank you parents for not mutilating me.

then stop pontificating to people who were how bad it is...I got it done for medical reasons at an age where I can remember it, I'm 100% intact and my parents did not infact mutilate me. with all due respect go fcuk yourself if youre going to keep banging on about how people with circumcisions are not intact or were mutilated...no need to be an asshole

Alizrian Crimson

Depp wrote: »

then stop pontificating to people who were how bad it is...I got it done for medical reasons at an age where I can remember it, I'm 100% intact and my parents did not infact mutilate me. with all due respect go fcuk yourself if youre going to keep banging on about how people with circumcisions are not intact or were mutilated...no need to be an asshole

You had it done for medical reasons. No way I'm going to accept boys being cut for religious and cosmetic reasons. I don't care who that offends.

'Intact' is often used to refer to men who are not circumcised. No need to get angry about that.

I'm sorry I've upset you. It's not my intention to insult men who were circumcised.

Wibbs

Widdershins wrote: »

I have some objection to unnecessary procedures, but you really need to inform yourself about FGM. That's shockingly belittling.

The point being made W is that even if the "only" tissue that was taken from girls was exactly the same tissue* as boys no way would people condone it. When I posed the question earlier in the thread to the circumcision is great poster, his only argument was that one was illegal and the other legal. In other words he completely avoided the question. He'd have to, because if it was an affront to body autonomy in girls it would have to be the same for boys.



*The clitoral hood/prepuce/foreskin and labia in girls is analogous to the foreskin in boys(both have a frenulum/banjo string too, also usually removed in male circumcisions). If you look at a willy you'll have noticed the line that runs from the perineum across the scrotum and up the underside of the penis. Because men are in many ways "converted" women and the male genital structure is formed from the baseline female structure, that's the scar where the "vulva" closed up in utero.

Depp

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

You had it done for medical reasons. No way I'm going to accept boys being cut for religious and cosmetic reasons. I don't care who that offends.

'Intact' is often used to refer to men who are not circumcised. No need to get angry about that.

90% of your posts on this thread are about how much worse your life is without a foreskin, its not any worse, you have no idea what its like and you're talking out of your hole.

Whether its often used or not doesn't change the fact to say its ignorant as fcuk...far be it from me as to what you can and can't say but if you say it you're still being a knob*

*excuse the pun

Alizrian Crimson

Depp wrote: »

90% of your posts on this thread are about how much worse your life is without a foreskin, its not any worse, you have no idea what its like and you're talking out of your hole.

Whether its often used or not doesn't change the fact to say its ignorant as fcuk...far be it from me as to what you can and can't say but you're still being a knob*

*excuse the pun

It's not ignorant at all to be opposed to the circumcision of boys for religious or cosmetic reasons.

I hope the day comes when it is outlawed.

Wibbs

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

It's not my intention to insult men who were circumcised.

Ditto. It would be well beyond the Pale to do so.

If a man is circumcised, the chances are extremely high that it was performed when he was an infant for cultural reasons, or for valid medical reasons(very few adult men with normally functioning penises elect to go for such surgery and if they do it's for cultural reasons) .

The latter is usually a required medical procedure so that a man gets back functionality because he has a non functioning penis because of a medical pathology going on. And it's a major boon to such a man. To insult a man over that would be akin to insulting a woman who lost a breast because of a mastectomy. Stupid and shabby.

In the former the man had zero choice in the matter because he was an infant.

ceadaoin.

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

You had it done for medical reasons. No way I'm going to accept boys being cut for religious and cosmetic reasons. I don't care who that offends..

Ok so what are you doing to help stop the practice? Going on about how unfair it is that FGM is widely condemned isn't going to do anything

Alizrian Crimson

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Ok so what are you doing to help stop the practice? Going on about how unfair it is that FGM is widely condemned isn't going to do anything

Well I've helped expose the hypocrisy involved between male and female circumcision so that's a start. Maybe I can donate to some anti circumcision groups.

The good news is this stupid ritual is dying off. Even in the America the rates of circumcision of newborns are falling.

ceadaoin.

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Well I've helped expose the hypocrisy involved between male and female circumcision so that's a start. Maybe I can donate to some anti circumcision groups.

The good news this stupid ritual is dying off. Even in the America the rates of circumcision of newborns are falling.

Why have you ignored all the posts pointing out how different FGM is from male circumcision? They are not comparable at all.

Are most circumcised males left with non functioning genitalia? Are they infertile? Unable to fully empty their bladder? Do they frequently die from the procedure? Do they have an increased risk of death their entire lives? Are they unable to have sexual intercourse without experiencing pain? Have to go through another cutting procedure to even attempt sex? Are their children more at risk of dying?

Widdershins

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Well I've helped expose the hypocrisy involved between male and female circumcision so that's a start. Maybe I can donate to some anti circumcision groups.

The good news is this stupid ritual is dying off. Even in the America the rates of circumcision of newborns are falling.

Is being an idiot like being high all the time?

Alizrian Crimson

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Why have you ignored all the posts pointing out how different FGM is from male circumcision? They are not comparable at all. Are most circumcised males left with non functioning genitalia? Are they infertile? Unable to fully empty their bladder? Do they frequently die from the procedure? Do they have an increased risk of death their entire lives? Are they unable to have sexual intercourse without experiencing pain? Are their children more at risk of dying?

I am opposed to all forms of female circumcision. The same with male circumcision, unless maybe there are sound medical reasons.

Now if want to have my daughters clitoral hood removed I would probably be arrested for child abuse. I want my son's foreskin removed it will be allowed. It's the same tissue being removed.

Why is that ok? Why is ok to modify the genitals of a male without his consent?

ceadaoin.

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

I am opposed to all forms of female circumcision. The same with male circumcision, unless maybe there are sound medical reasons.

Now if want to have my daughters clitoral hood removed I would probably be arrested for child abuse. I want my son's foreskin removed it will be allowed. It's the same tissue being removed.

Why is that ok? Why is ok to modify the genitals of a male without his consent?

I already said I don't think that's ok. Unless there are medical reasons for the procedure, such as phimosis

Alizrian Crimson

Widdershins wrote: »

Is being an idiot like being high all the time?

Whats the problem? Why should I accept baby boys having the genitals modified for religious and cosmetic reasons?

Alizrian Crimson

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I already said I don't think that's ok. Unless there are medical reasons for the procedure, such as phimosis

Then we're on the same page.

kylith

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Nothwithstanding the small test population,



strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumstraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber.... the doctor used a plastic bell with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anesthetic was used.
The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma"


No sh1t the infant was subjected to some trauma, water boarding would have been less stressful. Fcukers should have been struck off. Mengle wouldn't have attempted that.

All except for the MRI is standard practice for circumcising infants. They are strapped down so they don't wriggle. They are not necessarily routinely anaesthetised for the procedure, parents are told that neonates don't feel pain like adults do.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I doubt it
I also doubt the average girl gets it.
"At least" an infant boy after the snip gets to be cuddled by his evil mother rather than being left languish strapped to an apparatus.

Again, no, they are not cuddled by their mother. Many American hospitals still use nurseries. The babies are circumcised, bandaged, and brought back to the nursery. 'Strapped to an apparatus' is standard procedure.

I would imagine that if the parents saw their babies being strapped down, their penis put in a clamp, and the actual removal done they'd be less inclined to opt for a procedure whose only obvious benefit is to the hospital issuing the bill.