What...the...fuck (female circumcision)

[Devek]

That reminds me a joke about some missionaries in Mexico.

The missionary was talking to a couple that already had 7 kids, so he introduced them to a condom and told him to put it on his penis before having sex and she won't get pregnant again.

A few months later the couple shows up and the woman is pregnant again expecting their 8th child. The missionary asks them if he used a condom and he said "Yes, I put the condom on like you asked.. but eventually I had to pee so I cut the of it off."

[Kaelan]

3) Many arguments in this thread stem from ignorance; for example, in some cases male circumcision is medically necessary due to a condition where the foreskin is too tight and causes pain. FGM is never necessary. Male circumcision has also been proven to reduce the risk of contracting AIDS by a significant percentage, and may thus be the key to turning the tide on AIDS in Africa (especially because males are mostly responsible for spreading the disease).

It goes both ways actually, there's a lot of research showing removing the foreskin has beneficial effects and there's an equal amount of research that shows exactly the opposite. In general, the consensus is that there isn't enough evidence on either side to make any conclusion for ceirtain. I should mention that at the moment, there is not a single reputable medical institution that recommends circumcision to be performed on all babies for any medical reason.

There are, of course, extremely particular and uncommon cases where it's needed due to some kind of health risk, but those are just that, extremely particular cases. They really don't have any bearing on trying to justify it as a common practice on all children, any more than you would justify making it mandatory to have every second-hand smoker in the country examined on a frequent basis just in the off-chance they contracted lung cancer. I should also mention, since you brought it up, that there are ways to fix the whole "my skin is too tight" problem without performing a surgery to have it completly removed.

[Priran]

1) FGM is barbaric. Anyone who disagrees needs to take their argument up with reality, but I seriously doubt anyone would argue, in all intellectual honesty, that FGM is not barbaric. This we can and should all agree upon. However, it is obvious we do not all agree upon whether or not male circumcision is even barbaric to begin with, as many people (both male and female) actually prefer it.

rofl

When tribes of the black man mutilate their teenage daughters' genitals out in the jungle, it's barbaric.

When the white man mutilates his newborn son's, it's not.

Bigot.

2) If you do believe both are barbaric, disputing which is more barbaric (FGM or male circumcision) is first and foremost unnecessary. The two causes are not opposed to each other. However, it is also no question that FGM is more dangerous, painful, and unwanted, and thus putting an end to it is more urgent.

Male circumcision is just as painful.

Over a dozen studies confirm the extreme pain of circumcision. It has been described as “among the most painful [procedures] performed in neonatal medicine.” In one study, researchers concluded that the pain was “severe and persistent.” Increases in heart rate of 55 beats per minute have been recorded, about a 50 percent increase over the baseline. After circumcision, the level of blood cortisol increased by a factor of three to four times the level prior to circumcision.Investigators reported, “This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients.”

Because FGM is done to the poor, poor young african women who can complain and cry and get good press, people are motivated to patronize them.

Bigot.

[Palin]

Have you been ignoring the fact that FGM causes much more severe long term complications than male circumcision? Male circumscion potentially can go wrong and according to some sources reduces the amount of pleasure for the male during sex(other sources claims it increases the amount, so its a conflicting argument), however the male is still able to carry on a perfectly normal sex life. FGM more often than not results in serious life-long complications with child-birth, bleeding, and a complete loss of the female libido and sexual drive.

I'm against male circumcision as it's used in present day American too, but comparing the severity of male circumcision to FGM is way out there.

[Priran]

Have you been ignoring the fact that FGM causes much more severe long term complications than male circumcision? Male circumscion potentially can go wrong and according to some sources reduces the amount of pleasure for the male during sex(other sources claims it increases the amount, so its a conflicting argument), however the male is still able to carry on a perfectly normal sex life.

Wow, it increases the amount? Care to cite an unbiased source for that? Because a quick google shows a bunch of medical research that shows decreased sensitivity and destroyed nerves, and a couple interviews with circumcised men who say it feels better.

FGM more often than not results in serious life-long complications with child-birth, bleeding, and a complete loss of the female libido and sexual drive.

Prohibition has led to FGC going underground, at times with people who have had no medical training performing the cutting without anesthetic, sterilization, or the use of proper medical instruments. The procedure, when performed without any anesthetic, can lead to death through shock from immense pain or excessive bleeding. The failure to use sterile medical instruments may lead to infections and the spread of disease, such as HIV, especially when the same instruments are used to perform procedures on multiple women.

The first time having sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful, and infibulated women will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their husband access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the husband with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.

That's not a problem with female circumcision, that's a problem with people being dirt poor and uneducated.

This study was conducted on a cohort of 28,393 women attending delivery wards at 28 obstetric centers in areas of Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal and The Sudan. A high proportion of these mothers had undergone FGC. According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC.

They fail to mention the average world healthcare ranking of those countries is 131st.

[joft]

When tribes of the black man mutilate their teenage daughters' genitals out in the jungle, it's barbaric.

When the white man mutilates his newborn son's, it's not.

Priran, have you noticed that everyone else in this thread is disagreeing with you, male and female alike? At this point you're only arguing against a straw man; I have never said male circumcision is not barbaric, on the contrary, I believe it is. But it is also clear to me, due to my basic knowledge of human anatomy and sexual function, that FGM is much more severe than male circumcision. If you were given the choice between having your foreskin cut off while you were a baby- an experience you most likely won't remember, and having the entire head of your penis cut off (foreskin included, obviously) when you're 10 or 11 years old, can you honestly say you would choose the latter?

Male circumcision is just as painful.

The source you cite merely establishes that male circumcision is painful, it makes no comparison to FGM. Does it bother you at all that you have to stretch the meaning of the link in order to make it support your argument?

Because FGM is done to the poor, poor young african women who can complain and cry and get good press, people are motivated to patronize them.

It's very ironic that you call me a bigot immediately following this sentence. Your statement is just a confirmation of what I said in my last post, it's "nasty, unthoughtful, and ridiculous." It's ridiculous because you're accusing "poor, poor" African women of crying and getting good press, when there's really almost no press on this at all, as has been thoroughly demonstrated by your ignorance concerning it. It's nasty and unthoughtful because you're just using this issue, which I'm sure you normally dedicate about 0% of your time to, in order to 1up everybody in a thread on BG forums to boost your internet celebrity points.

Let me reiterate:

1) Stopping FGM and stopping male circumcision are not mutually opposed causes. For example, I believe Ivve is opposed to both; I am too. Some people are not opposed to male circumcision, including some males who have been circumcised.

2) Nobody believes FGM is more urgent because it happens to black women or because it's part of a different culture or a different religion, but because it is more surgically invasive, dangerous, and painful. You can stop insisting it's due to our latent bigotry, because it isn't.

[rizzuh]

You know, to this day I have no clue why us ladies find this kind of confidence attractive. "My cock is the most amazing thing since slices bread!" Bullshitting or not, fake confidence or not, it obviously still works! :O I'm no exception, it just baffles me. My current reeled me in by constantly telling me how amazing his ass was... <.<

Every guy think he has the best dick in the world (unless they're asian! ooo cheapshot...)

Confidence is attractive, and it works, even when talking about your penis. Just don't go overboard, and don't forget to compliment us as well as your penis.

I much rather have a vagina than a penis Devek. Vaginas are cooler, and much cuter, and the orgasms are better Penises are awesome too, but in their own way.

ya well atleast ours spit after every session, which can be used for hair solution (so i heard)..... actually some girls can squirt, and i find that very attactive.

[Valiere]

Uncircumsized dicks look funny lol.

All dicks look funny. Uncircumsized or not, if you ever whip out your piece and think your ladyfriend isn't laughing on the inside, think again.

QFT

rofl

When tribes of the black man mutilate their teenage daughters' genitals out in the jungle, it's barbaric.

When the white man mutilates his newborn son's, it's not.

Bigot.

My god, the stupidity....it's excruciating....

[Beckwin]

wtf @ priran. seriously.

[Khamsin]

lol at thinking that MGM is anything like female circumcision.

[Priran]

Priran, have you noticed that everyone else in this thread is disagreeing with you, male and female alike?

I'd have thought from this sentence that'd you'd read the entire thread. How wrong I was.

At this point you're only arguing against a straw man; I have never said male circumcision is not barbaric, on the contrary, I believe it is. But it is also clear to me, due to my basic knowledge of human anatomy and sexual function, that FGM is much more severe than male circumcision.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to make the point against me that "some don't think male circumcision is barbaric" and claim, yourself, to think it is. And I covered the whole "glans and clitoris are analogous" argument a couple pages back. Read your own posts, read the thread, and then you can argue against mine.

If you were given the choice between having your foreskin cut off while you were a baby- an experience you most likely won't remember, and having the entire head of your penis cut off (foreskin included, obviously) when you're 10 or 11 years old, can you honestly say you would choose the latter?

Wow, babies are given a choice now? Fuck. And can you stop even attempting the "cut off the glans" argument? Removing the glans would damage the structure and function of the penis, removing the clitoris simply removes much of the feeling to the area.

As far as the idea of injustice being excusable as long as its target can't complain about it, congratulations, I've never heard that from someone pretending to be on the high road.

Male circumcision is just as painful.

The source you cite merely establishes that male circumcision is painful, it makes no comparison to FGM. Does it bother you at all that you have to stretch the meaning of the link in order to make it support your argument?

I'm sorry your knowledge of the human anatomy is so admittedly fucking basic, but the pain of having hundreds of nerves cut unanesthetized is pretty far up there. The nervous system of a baby is even more sensitive than an adult's, and circumcision can make them cry for over an hour straight or, more commonly, just send them into neurogenic shock.

Because FGM is done to the poor, poor young african women who can complain and cry and get good press, people are motivated to patronize them.

It's very ironic that you call me a bigot immediately following this sentence. Your statement is just a confirmation of what I said in my last post, it's "nasty, unthoughtful, and ridiculous." It's ridiculous because you're accusing "poor, poor" African women of crying and getting good press, when there's really almost no press on this at all, as has been thoroughly demonstrated by your ignorance concerning it. It's nasty and unthoughtful because you're just using this issue, which I'm sure you normally dedicate about 0% of your time to, in order to 1up everybody in a thread on BG forums to boost your internet celebrity points.

Right, there's no press or organizations lobbying against it, it was just all of a sudden banned in most of the countries whose culture it's been a part of for hundreds of years.

I love it when unqualified idiots try drawing psychological conclusions about others, but you're kind of wrong. I'm just defending a post I made on the first page (that you didn't read).

[joft]

I'd have thought from this sentence that'd you'd read the entire thread. How wrong I was.

I read the entire thread before my first reply.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to make the point against me that "some don't think male circumcision is barbaric" and claim, yourself, to think it is. And I covered the whole "glans and clitoris are analogous" argument a couple pages back.

The point is valid. The majority of males and females in the US are in favor of male circumcision, even most males who have been circumcised. My argument is that it probably isn't quite as drastic or barbaric if the majority of people who have had it are glad they did.

Wow, babies are given a choice now? Fuck. And can you stop even attempting the "cut off the glans" argument? Removing the glans would damage the structure and function of the penis, removing the clitoris simply removes much of the feeling to the area.

I never said babies are given a choice, and I concede that that is part of the barbarity of male circumcision. I have never argued against that. But you did manage to dodge my question. Also, your argument against the glans/clitoris point is an argument from ignorance. The glans and the clitoris are exactly analagous, even containing about the same number of nerve endings, except the clitoris is smaller so the nerve endings have a higher concentration, making it arguably more sensitive than the glans.

As far as the idea of injustice being excusable as long as its target can't complain about it, congratulations, I've never heard that from someone pretending to be on the high road.

And you still haven't. Why do you have to argue against so many straw men?

I love it when unqualified idiots try drawing psychological conclusions about others, but you're kind of wrong. I'm just defending a post I made on the first page (that you didn't read).

I've read all of your posts in this thread, and it's quite obvious that you're playing the shock-jock devil's advocate here. Or at least it may be obvious to everyone except for you, but I'm not sure how self-aware or self-deceiving you are. I don't think I need to a PhD in psychology to exercise basic human intuition, either. It's pretty self-evident that refusing to concede your original point is your entire motivation in this discussion, which is exactly what I was talking about in my first reply: trying to pwn everybody in an internet debate. You can keep going, making up more straw men to defeat, ignoring larger and larger pieces of reality, making people think you're more and more of a jackass, or you can just concede and stop pwning yourself.

[archibaldcrane]

Pririan's argument is that he finds it ironic that we are up in arms about the cutting of women's genitalia, while we are largely nonchalant about the cutting of men's genitalia.

When looking at this in the most general, uneducated sense, it does appear ironic. It's only in the details of both procedures that the irony largely disappears.

Pririan, we get it, it appears to be ironic from your uneducated, stubbornly insistent point of view. Fortunately most of us aren't afflicted with such idiocy, and can see through this apparent irony.

[Priran]

I'm sorry, but you don't get to make the point against me that "some don't think male circumcision is barbaric" and claim, yourself, to think it is. And I covered the whole "glans and clitoris are analogous" argument a couple pages back.

The point is valid. The majority of males and females in the US are in favor of male circumcision, even most males who have been circumcised. My argument is that it probably isn't quite as drastic or barbaric if the majority of people who have had it are glad they did.

They're in favor of it because it's socially accepted. Not one medical organization recommends it on a medical basis. It's socially accepted for women to be circumcised in the countries in which it's performed.

Wow, babies are given a choice now? Fuck. And can you stop even attempting the "cut off the glans" argument? Removing the glans would damage the structure and function of the penis, removing the clitoris simply removes much of the feeling to the area.

I never said babies are given a choice, and I concede that that is part of the barbarity of male circumcision. I have never argued against that. But you did manage to dodge my question. Also, your argument against the glans/clitoris point is an argument from ignorance. The glans and the clitoris are exactly analagous, even containing about the same number of nerve endings, except the clitoris is smaller so the nerve endings have a higher concentration, making it arguably more sensitive than the glans.

Women piss through their clitoris? What the fuck's in the water where you live?

That point is valid only if you're trying to argue from the overly literal point of a biologist. The glans is part of the penile tissue responsible for erection and carrying the urethra. The clitoris's analogous structure for this tissue does nothing mechanically useful, only enhances pleasure.

You can't say that cutting off both of these structures would have the same effect. The scrotum and labia are analogous, as well; is castration the same as removing the labia?

As far as the idea of injustice being excusable as long as its target can't complain about it, congratulations, I've never heard that from someone pretending to be on the high road.

And you still haven't. Why do you have to argue against so many straw men?

Now, I'm taking the liberty of making a couple inferences about your quote; stop me when they don't make sense.

If you were given the choice between having your foreskin cut off while you were a baby- an experience you most likely won't remember, and having the entire head of your penis cut off (foreskin included, obviously) when you're 10 or 11 years old, can you honestly say you would choose the latter?

Here, "while you were a baby" refers to male circumcision, and "10 or 11" refers to female, correct?

So you're saying male circumcision is excusable because it's performed on infants who can't remember it when they grow up, and female circumcision is comparably worse because teens can communicate their feelings with others. That's idiotic. Pain of that intensity can have an effect on the growth and development of a baby's nervous system, for one thing. For another, that's exactly what I said, that believe you can do terrible things to people who can't stand up for themselves.

I love it when unqualified idiots try drawing psychological conclusions about others, but you're kind of wrong. I'm just defending a post I made on the first page (that you didn't read).

I've read all of your posts in this thread, and it's quite obvious that you're playing the shock-jock devil's advocate here. Or at least it may be obvious to everyone except for you, but I'm not sure how self-aware or self-deceiving you are. I don't think I need to a PhD in psychology to exercise basic human intuition, either. It's pretty self-evident that refusing to concede your original point is your entire motivation in this discussion, which is exactly what I was talking about in my first reply: trying to pwn everybody in an internet debate. I'm just trying to get you to stop pwning yourself.

Is "pwning" the technical term?

And yes, I'm pretty sure you need a Ph.D to practice medicine of any kind, or else doctors would be out of a job. I'd imagine that thinking you can understand something complex by simplifying it is a kind of mental illness, but I'm not qualified to come to that conclusion.

When looking at this in the most general, uneducated sense, it does appear ironic. It's only in the details of both procedures that the irony largely disappears.

Pririan, we get it, it appears to be ironic from your uneducated, stubbornly insistent point of view. Fortunately most of us aren't afflicted with such idiocy, and can see through this apparent irony.

I've been ignoring most of the posters who insist on taking potshots based on completely unfounded statements, but yours is kind of funny because you were actually making larger posts earlier.

Please, show me the devil in the details. I can't find any. I mean, you can find them and you can't even spell a 6-letter word that you've been looking at for most of this thread, it must be pretty simple, right?

[archibaldcrane]

I'd imagine that thinking you can understand something complex by simplifying it is a kind of mental illness, but I'm not qualified to come to that conclusion.

Did you just accuse someone else of oversimplification?

Female circumcision: illegal in many third-world countries

Male circumcision: UM LIEK IT DOES VARIUS GOOD STUF SNIP SNIP SNIP

Wonderful.

[Priran]

I'd imagine that thinking you can understand something complex by simplifying it is a kind of mental illness, but I'm not qualified to come to that conclusion.

Did you just accuse someone else of oversimplification?

You'd probably think that.

[archibaldcrane]

Please, show me the devil in the details. I can't find any.

Male circumcision results in somewhat reduced physical pleasure sensation. It leaves the resulting penis arguably more or less aesthetically pleasing.

Female circumcision leaves women with increased risk of problems during childbirth. They more often have to get cesarean sections and post-partum hemorrage. They are unable to have clitoral orgasms, meaning that many are unable to orgasm at all after the procedure. They are at significantly increased risk of urinary and reproductive tract infections. Some women need to be cut open in order to have sex for the first time.

These are the details of the lasting effects of both male circumcision and female genital cutting. This is where the devil lies.

Any questions?

[Xajii]

rofl

When tribes of the black man mutilate their teenage daughters' genitals out in the jungle, it's barbaric.

When the white man mutilates his newborn son's, it's not.

Bigot.

are you fucking kidding me? you're so dense that you turn this into calling him a BIGOT?

let's look at the facts.

Female "circumcision";
Removal of the clitoris
clear intention- loss of sexual stimulation
danger- high, heavy bleeding, also use of unsterilized tools, liquids which may burn the vagina itself

Male "circumcision";
Removal of the foreskin
intention- medical or aesthetic, either way...
danger- low, although death is technically possible it is vastly unlikely, same as plenty of surgery operations

fundamentally they are both acts of mutilation but the severity is simply incomparable, and the intentions behind male circumcsiion are not cruel only misguided.

this has nothing to do with race, you have made yourself sound quite little and ignorant by bringing that in here.

[Priran]

Any questions?

Yes. Did you bother doing any research?

Circumcision is a form of perinatal (birth) trauma. Cansever tested boys before and after circumcision and found that the trauma causes severe disturbance of normal function. Taddio and others have documented behavioral changes at six months of age, suggestive of PTSD in circumcised boys. Yilmaz et al. have demonstrated PTSD in boys in the phallic period who are undergoing circumcision for phimosis. Rhinehart has documented posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from the perinatal trauma of circumcision in middle-aged males. substantial evidence that perinatal trauma and/or deprivation of pleasure contribute to later aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour. Anand and Scalzo suggest that early trauma predisposes to altered pain sensitivity, stress disorders, ADD/hyperactivity, and self-destructive disorders. Van der Kolk identified a compulsion in traumatized persons to repeat the trauma. Goldman reports that the performance of circumcision by a circumcised male doctor may be a reenactment of one's own circumcision trauma.

Persons who have lost body parts must grieve their loss. The first stage of grief is denial of the loss. Fitzgerald and Parkes state that "Anything that seriously impairs sensory or cognitive function is bound to have profound psychological effects, not only on the person who is affected but also on family, friends, workmates, and caregivers." The thought of permanent loss of sensory function is so painful that persons deny their loss in order to avoid facing the painful feelings. Denial of loss causes a flight from reality. Parkes et al. state that persons in denial may minimize their loss. Circumcision causes the loss of a body part and all of its functions including a drastic loss of erogenous sensory function, so denial of loss is not uncommon in circumcised males.

Goldman states that some circumcised male medical doctors misuse the medical literature to support, rationalize, and justify their own loss; and to defend the practice of circumcision.

Not going to bother responding to the above post, read the thread.

[archibaldcrane]

Circumcision is a form of perinatal (birth) trauma. Cansever tested boys before and after circumcision and found that the trauma causes severe disturbance of normal function. Taddio and others have documented behavioral changes at six months of age, suggestive of PTSD in circumcised boys. Yilmaz et al. have demonstrated PTSD in boys in the phallic period who are undergoing circumcision for phimosis. Rhinehart has documented posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from the perinatal trauma of circumcision in middle-aged males. substantial evidence that perinatal trauma and/or deprivation of pleasure contribute to later aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour. Anand and Scalzo suggest that early trauma predisposes to altered pain sensitivity, stress disorders, ADD/hyperactivity, and self-destructive disorders. Van der Kolk identified a compulsion in traumatized persons to repeat the trauma. Goldman reports that the performance of circumcision by a circumcised male doctor may be a reenactment of one's own circumcision trauma.

Persons who have lost body parts must grieve their loss. The first stage of grief is denial of the loss. Fitzgerald and Parkes state that "Anything that seriously impairs sensory or cognitive function is bound to have profound psychological effects, not only on the person who is affected but also on family, friends, workmates, and caregivers." The thought of permanent loss of sensory function is so painful that persons deny their loss in order to avoid facing the painful feelings. Denial of loss causes a flight from reality. Parkes et al. state that persons in denial may minimize their loss. Circumcision causes the loss of a body part and all of its functions including a drastic loss of erogenous sensory function, so denial of loss is not uncommon in circumcised males.

Goldman states that some circumcised male medical doctors misuse the medical literature to support, rationalize, and justify their own loss; and to defend the practice of circumcision.

Alright, let's make this a little more interesting. Pririan, are you circumcised? If so, do you feel that said circumcision has contributed to a single one of the psychological side-effects in the report you just quoted? If so, which?