Circumcision?

[kis123]

Yeah, I'm quite sure that's not true.


I haven't read this thread carefully, but circumcision with men and FGM are not equivalent, even if we use the same word.

FGM makes sex, childbirth, and sometimes even urination painful, and in some cases, life threatening. It's often used oppressively, as a means of enforcing fidelity among women by undermining their capabilities for casual sexual pleasure.

Removing foreskin has no consequences remotely as severe, so the two are completely non analogous.

Thank you!

Hey, we finally agree on something! There should be fireworks and a ticker tape parade in our honor..............

 

[LD_Tickler]

Thank you!

Hey, we finally agree on something! There should be fireworks and a ticker tape parade in our honor..............

Now we'll just need to agree on a colour scheme...

 

[Amnesiac]

Amnesiac, as a side note...it drives me nuts when you go crazy with bolding, underlining, and italicizing! I want to steadily read what you write, but when my eye sees this big underlined thing a bit in the future, it wants to jump right to it. I think if they are good points being bolded, they would speak for themselves.
- PurrBast

This is true, but I find that many texts get mistakenly interpreted without tonal emphatics...bolding the lines are like pointing out the thesis statement of the remaining paragraph and the underlines act like emphatic enunciations that give away the TONE of the typer. It's a screenwriter's tool to give line readings without actually giving them.

You can't seriously expect me to expect everybody to read EVERY LINE I write in this thread, so I gotta draw them to the points and then give them the chance to read the explanation AFTERWARD. Readers like it when they know there's a POINT somewhere in theres.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in the end I still see an uncircumcised man as multiple infections waiting to happen and all the soap and water in the world won't convince me otherwise.

Okay, looks like kis and I have pared our disagreements down to core matter, so lessee what I can do about it. It seems that the primary misunderstanding comes out of one of my earlier arguments that must not have been clear enough: the difference between the post-op male and female genitalia and its functions, et voila:

You still haven't shown me any evidence that a circumcised male has memory of his "mutilation" or lost any sexual pleasure especially since he has no other point of reference than what someone wrote in a medical journal

Now...my original argument WAS NOT THAT MALES REMEMBER THE SURGERY AS ADULTS. My argument was that males might remember the surgery for a few days or weeks after it was done (hence the comment about withdrawing infants), and that the memory MIGHT still linger subconciously as a sense memory rather than a conscious memory. Kis IS RIGHT, I HAVE NO PROOF FO THIS, but we HAVE seen in ADULTS examples that suppressed memories from childhood or other occasions can still effect their emotions and their behavior later in life.

For instance, there was a case of a woman (no I can't remember the citing source) who emerged from a routine surgery with a case of depression that couldn't be explained; she went to a psychiatrist and after a few sessions, the therapist decided to take her to a hypnotherapist, and the hypnotist discovered that during the surgery, the doctors had spoken about seeing something that looked cancerous, although it turned out that it wasn't. But she had heard the comment even under anesthetic and the memory of that was stored subconsciously, but it had a visible effect on her life. Also, some research indicates that the sound of a familiar voice might still register in some coma and vegetative state patients. So if I made any ARGUMENT, it was SUGGESTING that if suppressed memories of past events can affect us without our knowing it, what if the experience of circumcision is among them? Also PTSD-related trauma has a way of affecting us reflexively, so who knows?

No, it HASN'T been proven yet...but what if it's true? if you don't even imagine it, how can you investigate?

The only person who can answer that question is a man who was circumcised later in life and had sex before and after the procedure. If that is you, then you can answer it. If not, you can only spit in the wind because you don't have that point of reference.

Now, here's another point concerning both the above quotes that deals with the philosophy I was trying to communicate:

Let's say BOB was circumcised at 3 days old, and NIANA was FGM'ed at age 1 (I already said that not all FGM occurs during childhood, some do it earlier). Both of them forget the experience and never remember it. Now, in both of these cases, BOB and NIANA have lost a massive portion of their sexual sensitivity, but they have nothing to compare it to, since they've never known life with fully intact genitals. BOB grows up and has sex, and so does NIANA; so now they experience sex as only they can or will be able to know it.

Now, NIANA would probably never know how much she's missing out on until someone from the outside told her and said "Do you know how much you're missing? 95%!! They took it from you when you were too young to know!" She can't remember the surgery, and she certainly can't remember the missing tissue, so she's confused about how she should feel; she's had children, her vagina WORKS, and her vagina can feel something, so she's at a loss as to what to think. The outsider, the women AND men on this forum, and the world, conjuring the image of a restrained toddler screaming in agony as her flesh is torn from her, would SCREAM:
"YOU SHOULD FEEL ANGRY! THEY MUTILATED YOU! AGAINST YOUR WILL!!"

BOB, on the other hand, has gone most of his life never thinking about his circumcision. No man or woman looks at his cock and says "MY GOD WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU?!", and there's no men's rights groups visibly championing his rights. So one semester he takes a class and learns about something her never really knew about: the foreskin and circumcision. He reads about the missing 70% of sensitivity and suddenly thinks about how great sex feels...and that's only 30%! "What the hell does 100% feel like?" So he tells his girlfriend, his mother, any woman who will listen to him the story of a restrained 3 day old infant screaming in agony as a surgeon tore, clamped, sheared and sliced his flesh from him and the girlfriend, the mother, and women EVERYWHERE WOULD SAY:
"So what? It was just a little piece of skin."
"I LOST 70% THEY TOOK IT FROM ME!"
"You were 3 days old, you don't remember it, so what're you mad about? You have some feeling left right? Besides it looks better this way."
"Uh...Denise, you said all penises looked ugly."
"They do but uncircumcised penises look REALLY ugly. And they're filthy too, I'd never fuck a guy who had one."

2 matching scenarios, 2 matching characters, 2 matching revelations...2 COMPLETELY different sympathies. I was commenting on this kind of dichotomous attitude, I was NOT commenting that circumcised men have the same functioning difficulties as women NOR was I suggesting that circumcised men consciously remember the surgery or loss of sensitivity.

BOB and NIANA have the same experience, their genitals work, and they still retain SOME sensitivity in the flesh that's left. The women in BOB's story would never say to NIANA what they say to BOB, even though BOB isn't much different than NIANA in this case. Both people were forcibly cut against their will at an age they don't remember, and they've been ignorant of how much sensitivity their working organs lost...yet NIANA should be outraged, and Bob should stop complaining and be happy with what he's got...how the hell does that work?

I'm circumcised, and I've never experienced foreskin sensations...does that mean that I can't complain about it because I can't remember it? That since I don't know what it's like I have no cause for ire? You'd never tell that to a blacked-out rape victim would you? Or tell that to NIANA?

And you're RIGHT Kis that only an uncircumcised man who experiences circumcision later in life can compare...but if neonatal circumcision is routine or allowed, how many of those men are there going to be? How many men will have that choice and not others? Is removing that choice under parental authority acceptable in the Western Value system of Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and Freedom of choice?

I had my kid clipped and I don't hear him complaining. I'm not an abusive mother for wanting my son clean and healthy-not buying into that argument at all.

I never said you were abusive and I never implied that the parents who do this are. However, if someone raped your son at 5 months, you'd hate that motherfucker forever for what he did, even if your son grew up healthy, unscathed, and oblivious as to what happened to him...but you somehow feel indifferent that someone tied him done and took a knife, clamps and scissors to his genitals and literally skinned it with the same results? Weren't they both a violent, painful attack that injured him?

Can sympathy/empathy be undone by a list of marginal benefit ratios and concepts of beauty?

but in the end I still see an uncircumcised man as multiple infections waiting to happen and all the soap and water in the world won't convince me otherwise.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I'm pretty sure those uncircumcised men who stay clean WITH soap and water who have never had problems would look at your case and say "whoa, that IS weird, I don't blame her."

It's all personal opinion, you can't force people to believe things they don't believe. I did my research for 6 months before I delivered my son, and I felt it was beneficial to his health.
-...Glamorous...

Well, in that case I'd question your research more than you, although I might still be kinda dickish and ask you why you thought it was worth doing over the percentage rates of things that can go wrong (surgery-wise and infection/phimosis-wise) because I wouldn't do something irreversible with figures like that, let alone apply them to everyone everywhere.

But mebbe that's me. 😀

O-KAY, did I finally clear up the last notorious bits of confusion? Did I finally clarify the misunderstanding that's been bothering kis for so long?

 

[Bohemianne]

Yeah, I'm quite sure that's not true.

I haven't read this thread carefully, but circumcision with men and FGM are not equivalent, even if we use the same word.

FGM makes sex, childbirth, and sometimes even urination painful, and in some cases, life threatening. It's often used oppressively, as a means of enforcing fidelity among women by undermining their capabilities for casual sexual pleasure.

Removing foreskin has no consequences remotely as severe, so the two are completely non analogous.

Good heavens at last someone heard it loud and clear! Thank you.


In some cases of FGM, they sew women with just enough holes to let the necessary fluids (urine/menses) to pass through, then comes the horror of honeymoon. The man has to cut her with a blade just to consummate the night (no anesthesia!).

 

[kis123]

Huh??

*scratches head*

Amnesiac;

Who told you I was bothered?

I am not the least bit bothered for making the decision for my son to be clean and healthy. I am not bothered by my opinion that a circumcised man is cleaner than an uncircumcised one. I am not bothered by my decision to NEVER have sexual relations with an uncircumcised man again. None of that bothers me in the least.

You seem to be bothered that your rights were violated by your parents' decision to have you circumcised without your consent. I'm sorry you feel that way but I firmly believe they had your best interests at heart and that you're better off without the extra skin.

Your constant comparison of male and female circumcision is what baffles me. It's an apples to hand grenades comparison at best and downright wrong at worst. It comes down to intent; boys get circumcised for health reasons, girls get mutilated so they won't stray from their husbands. There is no health benefit at all to cutting a girls' clitoris away Amn-none at all. It's done for control of the woman and nothing else. The man can stray all he wants and his pleasure center hasn't been removed. Even with the excess foreskin removed he can still be pleasured sexually; the woman with the clipped clitoris cannot.

I await your response.

 

[LD_Tickler]

Huh??

*scratches head*

Amnesiac;

Who told you I was bothered?

I am not the least bit bothered for making the decision for my son to be clean and healthy. I am not bothered by my opinion that a circumcised man is cleaner than an uncircumcised one. I am not bothered by my decision to NEVER have sexual relations with an uncircumcised man again. None of that bothers me in the least.

You seem to be bothered that your rights were violated by your parents' decision to have you circumcised without your consent. I'm sorry you feel that way but I firmly believe they had your best interests at heart and that you're better off without the extra skin.

Your constant comparison of male and female circumcision is what baffles me. It's an apples to hand grenades comparison at best and downright wrong at worst. It comes down to intent; boys get circumcised for health reasons, girls get mutilated so they won't stray from their husbands. There is no health benefit at all to cutting a girls' clitoris away Amn-none at all. It's done for control of the woman and nothing else. The man can stray all he wants and his pleasure center hasn't been removed. Even with the excess foreskin removed he can still be pleasured sexually; the woman with the clipped clitoris cannot.

I await your response.

plus, FGM tends to be carried out in a way so unsanitary and brutal, that infections frequently follow, which sometimes leads to, you know, death.

 

[kis123]

In some cases of FGM, they sew women with just enough holes to let the necessary fluids (urine/menses) to pass through, then comes the horror of honeymoon. The man has to cut her with a blade just to consummate the night (no anesthesia!).

Oh dear God....I have to go lie back down now!

If that ever happened to me I'd shoot myself in the head before I'd let a man have sex with me.....ever!

Now I know why women in these countries throw their girl babies off cliffs.

 

[Libertine]

You seem to be bothered that your rights were violated by your parents' decision to have you circumcised without your consent

Amnesiac- if this is indeed your 'issue' with the parents who, without your consent, forced you to join The International Zionist Conspiracy, I suggest you sue them.

Any money the court awards you could be called 'Severance Pay'.

 

[Mister Scruff]

You seem to be bothered that your rights were violated by your parents' decision to have you circumcised without your consent. I'm sorry you feel that way but I firmly believe they had your best interests at heart and that you're better off without the extra skin.

Your constant comparison of male and female circumcision is what baffles me. It's an apples to hand grenades comparison at best and downright wrong at worst. It comes down to intent; boys get circumcised for health reasons, girls get mutilated so they won't stray from their husbands. There is no health benefit at all to cutting a girls' clitoris away Amn-none at all. It's done for control of the woman and nothing else. The man can stray all he wants and his pleasure center hasn't been removed. Even with the excess foreskin removed he can still be pleasured sexually; the woman with the clipped clitoris cannot.

In Europe circumcision isn't common. If you compare the landmass and populations of continental Europe, Scandanavia, and the British Isles with those of the USA they're probably roughly similar. If the European rate of STD contraction and urinary tract infection isn't lower than that in the USA it's probably least the same. Which makes no sense because the French shag like rabbits, the Germans are a dirty, dirty people, the Italians can't go anywhere without people wanting to shag them due to the innate sexiness and the British are a bunch of wankers who'll wipe their cock on anything.

 

[LD_Tickler]

the French shag like rabbits, the Germans are a dirty, dirty people, the Italians can't go anywhere without people wanting to shag them due to the innate sexiness and the British are a bunch of wankers who'll wipe their cock on anything.

I think I read that in the New Yorker.

 

[Amnesiac]

Who told you I was bothered? I am not the least bit bothered for making the decision for my son to be clean and healthy. I am not bothered by my opinion that a circumcised man is cleaner than an uncircumcised one....none of that bother me in the least.

I didn't mean you were bothered by your opinion, I meant you were bothered at my confusing explanations comparing FGM with male circumcision. And like I said, it's not like you don't have a personal REASON for your opinion in your case.*(See the bottom of the post)

You seem to be bothered that your rights were violated by your parents' decision to have you circumcised without your consent. I'm sorry you feel that way but I firmly believe they had your best interests at heart and that you're better off without the extra skin.

First of all, a foreskin on its own is not extra anything. If your penis is 5" long but your foreskin reaches your knees, THEN you might have extra foreskin, lol.

And at one time in our country's history, sterilizing certain people against their will painless or otherwise was considered to be done in the best interests of the patients and the public, and the proponents were quite sincere...today we call that eugenics and consider it morally repugnant and illegal. Just because your heart is in the right place...

Okay, YES this is kind of a personal issue with me. When I was born, circumcision was the standard without parental consent, so my parents had nothing to do with it. That's why I'm not mad at the person who did it; they were doing standard procedure, they probably didn't even give it a first thought. But had I been born in 1995, when it was optional, I'd have tracked the fucker down and cut his/her hand off with a tree saw. But I'm not using my personal feelings as a justification of my views, I'm using them for motivation and to convey perspective. Rape victims and abuse survivors also use their own personal feelings as motivation for bringing attention to their plight, especially in the female population...I doubt you'd accuse THEM of using "personal issues" to create a non-existent problem.

In a way, being circumcised is kind of like someone saying "Oh, I didn't think you'd want it, so I just cut it off." And my response would be "You think you coulda WAITED for me to TELL YOU?! At least let me test drive the motherfucker first!"

Your constant comparison of male and female circumcision is what baffles me. It's an apples to hand grenades comparison at best and downright wrong at worst. It comes down to intent; boys get circumcised for health reasons, girls get mutilated so they won't stray from their husbands. There is no health benefit at all to cutting a girls' clitoris away Amn-none at all. It's done for control of the woman and nothing else. The man can stray all he wants and his pleasure center hasn't been removed. Even with the excess foreskin removed he can still be pleasured sexually; the woman with the clipped clitoris cannot.

Once again, that's not ENTIRELY true; there are several different types of FGM, and not ALL of them remove the clitoris, and even in the ones that DO, there's still about 2-10% left in the vagina (there is such a thing as a vaginal orgasm, rare as it is). And there's still the clitoral crura embedded behind the clitoral scar that can be manipulated from inside. The only reason that's left is because you can't cut it off without damaging the working part of the organ...sort of like the glans on the circumcised male.

...scuse me a minute, I have to get the horrible nausea out of my system after saying that...

Ah, somewhat better. *bleh* Now, bear with me here for a minute...

The bafflement/confusion about comparing FGM to circumcision seems to be the issue, and this is where and why I think the argument for gender bias comes into play. Males are circumcised against their will at a young age, lose 70% of their sensitivity; if he can't remember it, then it's okay. Women are also cut against their will at a young age and lose 70+% of their sensitivity; if they can't remember it, it doesn't matter, it's STILL INEXCUSABLE. That's 1 discrepancy. A difference of sensitivity loss between men-women as low as 5% or 30% is enough to justify it for men but not for women, yet a benefit ratio of equal size is enough to condone it for men all over. That's a 2nd discrepancy.

These [2] discrepancies alone just seem TO ME to scream "BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN!" Syndrome. You can cut off 70% of a man's sensitivity but you can't cut away 70+% of a woman's sensitivity BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN! You can dismiss any trauma or risk the potential complications in male circumcision but you can't do that with FGM BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN! If a man has no memory of his procedure (and in some cases, even if he does), he has no right to complain, but even if a woman can't remember her surgery...it doesn't matter BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN! REMOVING EVEN .1% OF HER SENSITIVITY IS OPPRESSION! Kis has already pointed out the prevalence of FGM as a subjugation technique so you can't deny this is an overwhelming factor (not the SOLE factor, I will grant you that)...but is THIS the main reason for outrage?

People talk about the circumcised men whoa re mad about their lost foreskins...nobody cares; they can't remember, so what's to be mad about? But if you encounter a woman who's not angry about her FGM (and in cultures where it's considered appropriate and moral, there would be some)...everybody says "Well, GET ANGRY! YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT WHAT WAS TAKEN FROM YOU! BECAUSE YOU'RE A WOMAN!"

To me it seems that when it comes to FGM, women are getting sympathy and outrage based on medical, emotional, AND sexual considerations...while men don't even get sympathy period. This is a glaring contradiction of empathy.

And what separates these two otherwise similar (non-con, painful, numbing, irreversible, complicating, culturally influenced) procedures from one another? A set of health reasons EACH within a .2-10% probability ratio. Name ONE non-lethal condition common enough to warrant routine organ excision (yes SKIN IS an organ...the biggest in fact) for an entire gender with a ratio that low. In order for the risks to exceed even 10%, a man would have to have multiple conditions at once (which are about as likely as winning the lottery twice). And many of these conditions can be treated with less severe surgeries like frenuloplasty, frenectomy, and preputioplasty, and even soap and water.

You can argue the oppression angle again and still what do you get? You can say there's "no medical reason to perform FGM and the people who defend it are doing so for cultural reasons" and that makes it unacceptable. Well if someone also says "there's little medical reason to perform routine circumcision on males, and the people who support it are largely doing so for cultural reasons" and apparently, that's okay.

Now here's the kicker...

If a world-renowned gynecology journal published a report written by the 12 best gynecologists and urologists in the world that said "Women who have undergone FGM are 20% less likely to develop vaginomycosis than women who are intact. A new procedure recently developed would include that 20% at a loss of only 53% of sensitivity" would those of you supporting circumcision in males start supporting routine circumcision in FEMALES? Would a 53% loss of pleasure be worth a 20% gain in health? Why not? BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN?

So how is .2-10% gain in health at 70% loss of pleasure for another painful, irreversible genital surgery done on a helpless child against their will with and often without anesthesia suddenly okay? BECAUSE IT'S A BOY?

When it comes to FGM, we are taking medical, emotional, sexual, pleasurable, and gender issues into consideration; in the case of men, we are dismissing criteria that we would never dismiss in women...we're giving them only medical, and with meager benefits at that. If we are to be a culture that treats both genders with equal respect and protection of personal integrity and freedom of choice, then in the case of male circumcision we are not giving males the same levels and seriousness of consideration that we are giving women. And THAT is why I argue gender bias as ONE of the major pillars of support in circumcision.

plus, FGM tends to be carried out in a way so unsanitary and brutal, that infections frequently follow, which sometimes leads to, you know, death.
- LD_tickler

Some FGM countries have modernized and taken to performing them in hospitals with sterile equipment and anesthesia...does that make it acceptable NOW? What do you think kis?

f this is indeed your 'issue' with the parents who, without your consent, forced you to join The International Zionist Conspiracy, I suggest you sue them...Any money the court awards you could be called 'Severance Pay'.

If you hazard one more return to the Ministry of Puns I'll BOX YER EARS you immaculately draped antipodean rapscallion!



*By the way kis, I was thinking about this in A&P class today. When you were getting these infections, did your OB/GYN ever test your vaginal pH levels? If they were low enough, they might have had trouble keeping out bacteria.

 

[LD_Tickler]

Hey Amn. Like I said before, I haven't read through this thread in entirety, so sorry if you already covered this, but where are you getting your statistics from? Men lose the same percentage of sensitivity as women when they're circumsized? Considering the clitoris has twice as many nerve endings as the entire penis, and only the foreskin is removed in male circumcision, I can't imagine that this is true.

Also, it's not just sensitivity loss plaguing victims of FGM, it's a lifetime of pain during routine functions such as urination. It would be analogous, maybe, if circumsized men had the head of their penis removed.

Also, I'm more dubious about your statistics regarding FGM. You must recognize that in so many places, these practices are lied about, kept secret, hidden. I can't imagine we have complete information on practices that occur in countries where if a western reporter goes in, s/he never comes out. I have to trust the eyewitness accounts that I've read which report, overwhelmingly, horrible consequences to FGM.

 

[Icycle]

It comes down to intent; boys get circumcised for health reasons, girls get mutilated so they won't stray from their husbands.

Actually, circumcision was popularized in North America as a means of sexual oppression in the guise of "health", as it was promoted to stop boys from masturbating. Nowadays, neonatal circumcision is performed probably as much or more for the aesthetic wishes of the parents as for anything else: "I want him to look like daddy", "I prefer the look of a circumcised penis", "I don't want him to be embarrased in the locker room". I sincerely doubt many parents are choosing circumcision solely because they want to reduce the risk of penile cancer and STIs.

 

[LD_Tickler]

I sincerely doubt many parents are choosing circumcision solely because they want to reduce the risk of penile cancer and STIs.

Actually, I'm willing to bet that is the predominant reason - only parents are unaware that the risks of non-circumcision are negligible.

 

[xionking]

I am not bothered by my decision to NEVER have sexual relations with an uncircumcised man again.

Really? Why wouldn't you have sex with an uncircumcised man ever again? Because they are "dirtier" than a circumcised man?

I'm not circumcised, and kis123, I promise you, all it takes is to peel back the foreskin in the shower and use a bit of soap and WHOA! MAGIC! My dick is clean!

Next thing we'll be arguing is, "Are uncircumcised men dumber than circumcised men?"

But seriously, you saying something like that does bother me. Us full fleshed dick folk deserve more than what you have to offer, Sweety.

-Xionking

 

[kis123]

Actually, circumcision was popularized in North America as a means of sexual oppression in the guise of "health", as it was promoted to stop boys from masturbating. Nowadays, neonatal circumcision is performed probably as much or more for the aesthetic wishes of the parents as for anything else: "I want him to look like daddy", "I prefer the look of a circumcised penis", "I don't want him to be embarrased in the locker room". I sincerely doubt many parents are choosing circumcision solely because they want to reduce the risk of penile cancer and STIs.

Well I certainly wouldn't want to speak for ALL parents, but this parent did it for health reasons and under the advisement of doctors. I could've cared less what my son looked like in the shower and his sperm donoring daddy wasn't around at the time to help me with the decision.

See, as little as 20 years ago, it wasn't about the ability to choose in medicine the way it is now. You did whatever your physician advised; he/she was the professional and you were the patient. You didn't argue with them about vaccinations, you got your kid vaccinated plain and simple. Nowadays a patient is more proactive in their treatment so now you can ask questions, do research, and bring additional alternatives to the table.

When I was diagnosed with fibromyalgia 18 years ago, it took the medical community nearly two years. It only took me an afternoon on the computer and bringing my findings to my physician. I replaced him shortly afterwards.

 

[Bohemianne]

These [2] discrepancies alone just seem TO ME to scream "BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN!" Syndrome. You can cut off 70% of a man's sensitivity but you can't cut away 70+% of a woman's sensitivity BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN! You can dismiss any trauma or risk the potential complications in male circumcision but you can't do that with FGM BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN! If a man has no memory of his procedure (and in some cases, even if he does), he has no right to complain, but even if a woman can't remember her surgery...it doesn't matter BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN! REMOVING EVEN .1% OF HER SENSITIVITY IS OPPRESSION! Kis has already pointed out the prevalence of FGM as a subjugation technique so you can't deny this is an overwhelming factor (not the SOLE factor, I will grant you that)...but is THIS the main reason for outrage?

What are you still complaining about? Who invented circumcision? Who rules the religion? Who fabricated these routine procedures anyway? Male I suppose. Mothers were just given instructions. Even episiotomy (which is debatable procedure) is invented by a male doctor. The first heart transplant was done by a male, they hailed it. Isn't it that male create all the major decision-making tasks in the world? I have NO problem with that. I admire that. But it seems you have a problem not getting even.

Why do famous worldwide cause oriented groups take FGM seriously if it's not a barbaric matter?

You should count your blessings.

-o0o-

Oh dear God....I have to go lie back down now!

If that ever happened to me I'd shoot myself in the head before I'd let a man have sex with me.....ever!

Now I know why women in these countries throw their girl babies off cliffs.

Hahaha... better than see them suffer like miserable living dead puppets!

 

[kis123]

Really? Why wouldn't you have sex with an uncircumcised man ever again? Because they are "dirtier" than a circumcised man?

I'm not circumcised, and kis123, I promise you, all it takes is to peel back the foreskin in the shower and use a bit of soap and WHOA! MAGIC! My dick is clean!

Next thing we'll be arguing is, "Are uncircumcised men dumber than circumcised men?"

But seriously, you saying something like that does bother me. Us full fleshed dick folk deserve more than what you have to offer, Sweety.

-Xionking

How about sticking to what I actually said instead of making stuff up? I know for you that would truly be a novel concept but give it a shot anyway okay?

I didn't say uncircumsised men were dumber so don't add to things that don't exist. I said per my experience with one that I will never do it again. I already gave my reasons for this if you haven't bothered to read them, they're still in print; maybe you should go and re-educate yourself!

And no, I do not believe no amount of soap and water will keep it clean enough for me.

Do me a favor-I don't tell you who to screw and you do the same. If you're offended, that's not my problem! Oh and you couldn't handle what I had to offer....sweety! After I left you babbling and speaking in tongues, you'd be ruined for all other women! But don't worry, I wouldn't do it at gunpoint or if you were the last male on earth!

 

[kis123]

What are you still complaining about? Who invented circumcision? Who rules the religion? Who fabricated these routine procedures anyway? Male I suppose. Mothers were just given instructions. Even episiotomy (which is debatable procedure) is invented by a male doctor. The first heart transplant was done by a male, they hailed it. Isn't it that male create all the major decision-making tasks in the world? I have NO problem with that. I admire that. But it seems you have a problem not getting even.

Why do famous worldwide cause oriented groups take FGM seriously if it's not a barbaric matter?

You should count your blessings.

-o0o-

You do know the origins behind hysterectomy (also developed by a male dr) don't you?? Women didn't have the choice back then either; as soon as she showed symptoms of menopause, the medical decision was to snatch out the majority of her reproductive organs. Now I do know in some women, it resolved the problem. But in others it caused so many more issues that she was better left alone.

Now back to Amnesiac:

Can you back up your percentages, especially when it comes to sensitivity in males post circumcision? Also it still doesn't cover the fact that there is no point of reference for sensitivity loss to the male who was circumsized at birth.

I think the bottom line comes to you being offended because we don't acknowledge that FGM and male circumcision are the same. You want validation of such and from me, I can't satisfy that for you. Even with anesthesia and done in a hospital, FGM goes right back to intent. No matter how allegedly safe the procedure is FGM is to insure the girl doesn't sleep around before she's married. What procedure are they doing to make sure the boys/men don't do the same?

 

[Amnesiac]

Under the weather tonight folks...will post tomorrow after I come back from class. Tune in tomorrow/today for my reply!

 

[MrMacphisto]

As a side note, another key difference between circumcising men and circumcising women is that men are usually circumcised as infants, whereas in most cases, women are circumcised during puberty.

You're not going to remember the circumcision as an infant, but you will definitely remember it if you're 9.

Also, keep in mind, most of these countries where female circumcisions are done don't exactly have professional anesthesticists readily available to administer the painkillers.

So, clearly, there is a very big difference between the two.

 

[SlaverTickler]

These [2] discrepancies alone just seem TO ME to scream "BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN!" Syndrome. You can cut off 70% of a man's sensitivity but you can't cut away 70+% of a woman's sensitivity BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN! You can dismiss any trauma or risk the potential complications in male circumcision but you can't do that with FGM BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN! If a man has no memory of his procedure (and in some cases, even if he does), he has no right to complain, but even if a woman can't remember her surgery...it doesn't matter BECAUSE IT'S A WOMAN! REMOVING EVEN .1% OF HER SENSITIVITY IS OPPRESSION! Kis has already pointed out the prevalence of FGM as a subjugation technique so you can't deny this is an overwhelming factor (not the SOLE factor, I will grant you that)...but is THIS the main reason for outrage?

Well I don't know much about the origins of male sniping, but it does see a little messed up to me that in some back water country somewhere a little girl is probably being held down by her own mother while someone hacks as her clitoris with a razor, while when it happens to male's it is while they are still babies and will most likely forget it ever happened. I am normally the first person to jump on anything "Anti-Male" but religion is most often created by men to favor men.

 

[Amnesiac]

Can you back up your percentages, especially when it comes to sensitivity in males post circumcision? - kis
Hey Amn. Like I said before, I haven't read through this thread in entirety, so sorry if you already covered this, but where are you getting your statistics from? Men lose the same percentage of sensitivity as women when they're circumsized? Considering the clitoris has twice as many nerve endings as the entire penis, and only the foreskin is removed in male circumcision, I can't imagine that this is true. - LD

I spent a lotta time writing those posts so I'd appreciate if you WENTBACKANDREADUM!!😀 yes, k,thnx.

This is a good point to bring up. Stats are a problem for both sides of the debate as a whole beyond this thread because both pro- and anti-circ arguments are beleaguered by biased data. Passions run so high on this topic (it makes the PS3-XBox-Wii flame wars look like a Tiddlywinks game) that both sides have a less-than-honest approach to presenting data; in fact, it's damn near impossible to get objective research on it because of all the factors coloring the methods, participants, and patients.

So I'm forced, like the main players on the world stage, to rely on the information that is available, and a lot of that is averages. What I do is take the stats and try to form a rounded probability scenario on each of them rather than adhering to them orthodoxically. So for instance, say I find several percentages on phimosis...well, since the figures conflict, I have to account for that discrepancy, so I take a logical deduction and then make a spectrum of averages rather than stating already dubious stats altogether. When I make that .2-10% circumcision figure, I'm including the reported percentages and then converting them into a rounded spectrum to account for the lack of an absolute. My commentary WAS SUPPOSED to address the variety in the numbers by accounting the high and low end.

I get my stats through wikipedia. You see, the main "foreskin" and "circumcision" pages are also victims of the biased activities of both sides, so you I can't rely on them themselves, but the hyperlinks lead to other satellite pages that tend to go unaltered. These pages themselves have links to other pages that exist outside the co-ed debating forums on the main wiki pages. Like I said, this is far from ideal, but since I can't bitch slap the pro- and anti-people into putting aside their bias and to collaborate on a universal objective study, I have to use what I can find.

One final note about the stats: on my last post, I tried to point out that the foreskin troubles tend to have their own probability rates independent of one another. There are multiple retraction problems, but not all of them are the same, not all have the same occurrence, and not all have the same treatment. But each one on its own has a similarly low level of occurrence. So, let's say that HYPOTHETICALLY retraction problems afflict 51% of the uncircumcised population; that 51% is a sum or average of multiple retraction problems each one with its own individual percentage. And that percentage is also affected by territory (developed/developing/Third World, etc.), individual physiology, probability, and others. And in all those cases, the percentage rates of each tend to be fairly low...low enough that in other fields of medicine no routine prophylactic treatment would be justified save for plague outbreaks. So there's no easy answer to stats, I can only go with what I can find.

Just as you can only go with what you can find in support of circumcision and opposition to FGM.

Also, it's not just sensitivity loss plaguing victims of FGM, it's a lifetime of pain during routine functions such as urination. It would be analogous, maybe, if circumsized men had the head of their penis removed.
- LD

I hate to sound like an advocate (because I'm NNNNNNNOT!), but you'd have to consider the hospital-based cases of FGM too. As I said and argued last time, I doubt any of you would advocate FGM even if it was performed in a sterile facility with anesthetic and professional doctors. But in those cases, the LIKELIHOOD of the complications you mentioned might be lower. I'm not saying they are, but the crudity of the back country FGM procedures are what leads to most of those complications, and you;d have to inquire if sterility and skill make a difference. Although I'm still pretty sure that wouldn't make a difference in your opinion about the wrongness of FGM.

I also hate to bring this up because it risks sounding like an everyday occurrence, but accidental penectomies DO occur. FGM, for all of its insidiousness is done with consideration of the vagina & uterus in mind: no culture, no matter HOW primitive would actively try to ruin their reproductive capabilities, and in spite of all that is taken off in FGM, the uterus still works. Now, in the worst case scenarios (and I will say there's LOTS of them), an INFECTION FROM THE SURGERY can damage the uterus to dysfunction, but the surgery itself doesn't...otherwise the woman would be useless to the tribe/community and the "surgeon" would be removed from that job. In the case of male circumcision, it is possible, (especially because the infant penis is so small and the tools so sharp and large) to accidentally take off the top of the entire organ...or to damage the organ to the point where amputation must be done to prevent infection. Now...in those cases, what's the guy gonna do? He has no head, or no penis at all so how is he going to copulate? Sure, he can reproduce--you jam a syringe into his epididymus and extract them--but he can't have sex. Even the FGM's woman can do that, as much as she'd likely not want to.

This doesn't happen often, and the probability of it is pretty close to the probability of getting penile cancer/phimosis/etc. But wouldn't you say that for a complication THAT severe isn't worth the risk even for a percentage that small? At least, on a procedure without life-or-death necessity. I don't want to sound dramatic, but what if your son became one of those accidental statistics...would you shrug it off and say "hey, the risks were comparable, I don't feel bad at all...cowboy up little guy, I'm sure you'll find some understanding woman and...y'know, work something out." Unlikely.

What are you still complaining about? Who invented circumcision? Who rules the religion? Who fabricated these routine procedures anyway? Male I suppose. Mothers were just given instructions. Even episiotomy (which is debatable procedure) is invented by a male doctor. The first heart transplant was done by a male, they hailed it. Isn't it that male create all the major decision-making tasks in the world? I have NO problem with that. I admire that. But it seems you have a problem not getting even.
- Bohemienne

No one knows who invented circumcision--I jokingly referred to a fictional Egyptian surgeon named Farbitzquiddle--because the practice predates the let's-document-ourselves-extensively period we enjoy today. What we do know is who began the modern movement that became routine neonatal circumcision, and also their motives. The original originator was probably male, but does that make it alright? If a woman invented a device that became a popular tool for rapists does that mean that it's alright because a woman invented it?

I like that you brought up episiotomy, because it also shares a thread with this topic. Episiotomies have become one of the many controversial gynecological topics, alongside of preventative hysterectomies. In the case of the latter, it's been done in the past as a way of dealing with pesky fibroid tumors that tend to affect a large number of women. Yet, in spite of the health risks AND the health benefits, a lot of women and men are saying "Waitaminute...do you have to go THAT far? Can't you think of some less drastic method to treat this problem?" And as a result of that skepticism and empathy, research is now being done on that and hysterectomies are becoming less frequent for that problem. And episiotomies the same. In fact, virtually every extreme surgery for common problems is being rethought today, even in cancer research which has traditionally required the biggest guns we've made. Somebody, somewhere, put aside the medical data and thought "is this too much?" and tried to figure a different idea out, and it's been paying off. But based on the responses I;ve seen here and the responses on the pro-circ forums, people don't seem to apply that thought to foreskins...circumcision's traditionally been the catch-all solution to any number of problems: "Got phimosis? Cut it off! Got a mole? Cut it off!" But thanks to the kind of thinking that I mentioned above, people rethought it and figured out less severe treatments for foreskin problems, probably to the point where one day circumcision will be a rare procedure.

And it SEEMS like most of you--I'm not accusing anyone--are saying that that kind of insight that serves other procedures so well shouldn't even be considered at all when it comes to circumcision.

Why do famous worldwide cause oriented groups take FGM seriously if it's not a barbaric matter? You should count your blessings.

What determines a barbaric act? It's a collection of necessity and sympathy and sometimes other aggregates as well. So much of the properties of FGM match circumcision that it surprises me that everyone thinks barbarism can be separated with the kind of justifications being offered for male circumcision.

And as for counting my blessings, I'm pretty sure that somewhere in FGM countries, a surgeon performing these procedures with a "progressive" outlook who actually considers a woman's pleasure in sex would say the same thing to an FGM opponent, and consider that opinion rational and not expect to be beaten to death with a shovel. Why shouldn't the same be true here for male circumcision? (the animosity, not the beating-to-death-with-a-shovel thing)

I think the bottom line comes to you being offended because we don't acknowledge that FGM and male circumcision are the same. You want validation of such and from me, I can't satisfy that for you.
- kis

Neither one of us--I don't think--is setting out to convert the other and thereby declare some kind of victory; as much as I hate circumcision I'm not advocating its elimination entirely...that's absurd; as flawed as I SUSPECT some of your opinions may be, I don't think they're unfounded and completely wrong. The point of argument is to expand knowledge and examine and test ideas, not to "win" by being "right". Most of my frustration and exasperation with you and the others--hence all of the dreaded boldfacing and underlining that provokes PurrBast's chagrin--is because I'm not sensing any kind of alteration in your opinions...not that you're coming over to my side, but that you're not even considering the points I've been making. I don't sense any sense of "okay, I see where you're coming from...you might be right about the circumstantial aspects of it, but I still argue that it has it's place...but not on the same foundation as I previously held." That's not ME WINNING and YOU LOSING...that's an indication that the opinion has become more complex.

A lot of the points you've made I've already encountered and considered before I even came to my present position. I was never "THAT IS SO WRONG I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYBODY ELSE SAYS!" when I was forming my opinions...I made myself do that. But even if I hadn't encountered kis' and co.'s opinions before, I would have incorporated them into my own opinions now. After all, you don't believe what you believe for no reason...you might have a valid point. And that validity can change my opinion, as stubborn as I might seem...I just haven't seen anything yet to make me conclude that the validity of male circumcision trumps all of the other considerations in play.

Can you back up your percentages, especially when it comes to sensitivity in males post circumcision? Also it still doesn't cover the fact that there is no point of reference for sensitivity loss to the male who was circumsized at birth.

You're right in the sense that a male circumcised at birth has no point of reference to what his pre-circumcision sensitivity was. For that, we have to go to the men who were circumcised LATER in life, and the evidence shows that there IS a difference, albeit with differing levels of importance. Some men are not affected by the difference, and some men ARE; it's a case-by-case basis with no discernible predictors over which person will be affected by which affect. Some men like the change, others despise it (I read a quote once where one guy said he'd trade his house to have his foreskin back, lol), but all of them notice a difference. So we can apply that to newborns as well: some of them would appreciate the change if given a comparison, others would not.

I would also ask how the prepubescent girls who undergo FGM before their orgasm response is formed or developed can compare pre-FGM sensitivity to post-FGM sensitivity. If sensitivity during sex is a main factor, then neither the FGM victims or circumcised males have a point of reference. Yet in males that's considered acceptable but in women it's considered unacceptable. So neither FGM'd girls nor circumcised boys have a point of reference for sexual pleasure loss so they don't know what they're missing...yet when it comes to FGM, we say "She'll never experience full sexual pleasure and THAT'S HORRIBLE! WE MUST STOP THIS!" but with circumcision we say "He'll never experience full sexual pleasure and...ah it's not important." More on this below.

Even with anesthesia and done in a hospital, FGM goes right back to intent. No matter how allegedly safe the procedure is FGM is to insure the girl doesn't sleep around before she's married. What procedure are they doing to make sure the boys/men don't do the same?

Now, I do want to clear up this little disagreement. I never meant to say that FGM and circumcision are THE SAME THING. I always meant to say that they are equally heinous and unjustifiable. From a procedure standpoint, they are different because you're talking about different genitalia with different designs and different compositions, so the affects of each surgery are different. Although I DO argue that since the penis and the clitoris (and subsequent substructures) are homologous, then these different surgeries are affecting the same tissues.

When you think about all the reasons why FGM is wrong, do you think that it's the combination of reasons that makes it wrong or do you think each reason is sufficient independent of the other?

EX:
1. FGM is used to subjugate women. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
2. FGM has no discernible medical benefit. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
3. FGM is excruciatingly painful. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
4. FGM removes substantial sexual pleasure. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
5. FGM can cause complications. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
6. FGM is done on non-consenting children. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.

Unless I miss my guess, any one of those 6 reasons are good enough on their own. Hell, look at #3...FGM is sometimes done with anesthesia, but even THAT doesn't overturn the conclusion. Each one of these considerations is strong enough on its own to oppose FGM in every capacity. Do you honestly believe that if there was even 1 counterargument in that list above that supported FGM that it would justify it? Now most of #1-6 MATCH EXACTLY with male circumcision and yet even the COMBINED reasons don't overturn the main reason why it's supported: a set of health problems with a .2-10% probability rate. And if I were smarter, I probably would have found a way to say that 3 posts ago, but, too late now.

I suppose it all boils down to our concept of what defines barbarism/violation? We've repeatedly butted heads over the memory issue: girls undergoing FGM often remember the incident, circumcised boys never remember their surgery. To me it seemed like the memory thing sounded too much like the whole "Tree in the forest" question: "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's present it does it make a sound?" Well, yes, because the physics of "sound" is such that observation isn't required to exist: a tree's mass would be affected by gravity in such a way that falling would cause vibrations in air strong enough for humans to detect (a feather landing on water probably makes sound, just none that we can hear). If a person is subjected to a painful procedure and doesn't remember it does that mean the procedure doesn't violate their integrity, effect their mind, or contradict the principles of our culture or offend our humanity?

That's why I tried to point out the rare occasions when FGM is done on infant girls, because then an unjustifiable procedure and a "justifiable" procedure share the same key ingredient that otherwise separates them; and in those cases that consideration seems irrelevant in the positions many of you take, and that baffles me. It's like discovering a major anomaly with canon-changing potential and then ignoring it "just because".

And the empathy argument is very important. Here's a point I've been trying to make: I DON'T HAVE A VULVA...AND YET I AM STILL AGAINST FGM. I CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH AN ANATOMY I DON'T EVEN HAVE! MY EMPATHY/SYMPATHY FOR FGM VICTIMS ISN'T CONTINGENT ON MEDICAL DATA. I don't look at FGM and say "before I form an empathic response, let me consult this gynecology research...EEEK! Okay, now I have a validated opinion!" But women in general seem to be doing it this way.

And I'm not saying that it's ONLY WOMEN supporting circumcision, because there's lots of men too. But I have noticed that an overwhelming number of women seem to have an indifferent attitude to something affecting men that they want sympathy for in their own gender. Women all over are saying "We want your understanding and empathy for females enduring FGM...but we don't extend that same extrospection to men, it's irrelevant". If I can step into someone else's shoes for an issue that doesn't affect me, then why can't others reciprocate? Isn't that selective empathy, which denotes a mild form of depraved indifference or at LEAST bias?

I am normally the first person to jump on anything "Anti-Male" but religion is most often created by men to favor men.
- SlaverTickler

Well, I wasn't saying that ALL reasons for circumcision were anti-male...I was more arguing that the gender bias was ONE OF THE MOTIVATIONS for ignoring the overlapping aspects of FGM & circumcision.

 

[Bohemianne]

No one knows who invented circumcision--I jokingly referred to a fictional Egyptian surgeon named Farbitzquiddle--because the practice predates the let's-document-ourselves-extensively period we enjoy today. What we do know is who began the modern movement that became routine neonatal circumcision, and also their motives. The original originator was probably male, but does that make it alright? If a woman invented a device that became a popular tool for rapists does that mean that it's alright because a woman invented it?

I like that you brought up episiotomy, because it also shares a thread with this topic. Episiotomies have become one of the many controversial gynecological topics, alongside of preventative hysterectomies. In the case of the latter, it's been done in the past as a way of dealing with pesky fibroid tumors that tend to affect a large number of women. Yet, in spite of the health risks AND the health benefits, a lot of women and men are saying "Waitaminute...do you have to go THAT far? Can't you think of some less drastic method to treat this problem?" And as a result of that skepticism and empathy, research is now being done on that and hysterectomies are becoming less frequent for that problem. And episiotomies the same. In fact, virtually every extreme surgery for common problems is being rethought today, even in cancer research which has traditionally required the biggest guns we've made. Somebody, somewhere, put aside the medical data and thought "is this too much?" and tried to figure a different idea out, and it's been paying off. But based on the responses I;ve seen here and the responses on the pro-circ forums, people don't seem to apply that thought to foreskins...circumcision's traditionally been the catch-all solution to any number of problems: "Got phimosis? Cut it off! Got a mole? Cut it off!" But thanks to the kind of thinking that I mentioned above, people rethought it and figured out less severe treatments for foreskin problems, probably to the point where one day circumcision will be a rare procedure.

And it SEEMS like most of you--I'm not accusing anyone--are saying that that kind of insight that serves other procedures so well shouldn't even be considered at all when it comes to circumcision.

What determines a barbaric act? It's a collection of necessity and sympathy and sometimes other aggregates as well. So much of the properties of FGM match circumcision that it surprises me that everyone thinks barbarism can be separated with the kind of justifications being offered for male circumcision.

And as for counting my blessings, I'm pretty sure that somewhere in FGM countries, a surgeon performing these procedures with a "progressive" outlook who actually considers a woman's pleasure in sex would say the same thing to an FGM opponent, and consider that opinion rational and not expect to be beaten to death with a shovel. Why shouldn't the same be true here for male circumcision? (the animosity, not the beating-to-death-with-a-shovel thing)

Neither one of us--I don't think--is setting out to convert the other and thereby declare some kind of victory; as much as I hate circumcision I'm not advocating its elimination entirely...that's absurd; as flawed as I SUSPECT some of your opinions may be, I don't think they're unfounded and completely wrong. The point of argument is to expand knowledge and examine and test ideas, not to "win" by being "right". Most of my frustration and exasperation with you and the others--hence all of the dreaded boldfacing and underlining that provokes PurrBast's chagrin--is because I'm not sensing any kind of alteration in your opinions...not that you're coming over to my side, but that you're not even considering the points I've been making. I don't sense any sense of "okay, I see where you're coming from...you might be right about the circumstantial aspects of it, but I still argue that it has it's place...but not on the same foundation as I previously held." That's not ME WINNING and YOU LOSING...that's an indication that the opinion has become more complex.

A lot of the points you've made I've already encountered and considered before I even came to my present position. I was never "THAT IS SO WRONG I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYBODY ELSE SAYS!" when I was forming my opinions...I made myself do that. But even if I hadn't encountered kis' and co.'s opinions before, I would have incorporated them into my own opinions now. After all, you don't believe what you believe for no reason...you might have a valid point. And that validity can change my opinion, as stubborn as I might seem...I just haven't seen anything yet to make me conclude that the validity of male circumcision trumps all of the other considerations in play.

You're right in the sense that a male circumcised at birth has no point of reference to what his pre-circumcision sensitivity was. For that, we have to go to the men who were circumcised LATER in life, and the evidence shows that there IS a difference, albeit with differing levels of importance. Some men are not affected by the difference, and some men ARE; it's a case-by-case basis with no discernible predictors over which person will be affected by which affect. Some men like the change, others despise it (I read a quote once where one guy said he'd trade his house to have his foreskin back, lol), but all of them notice a difference. So we can apply that to newborns as well: some of them would appreciate the change if given a comparison, others would not.

I would also ask how the prepubescent girls who undergo FGM before their orgasm response is formed or developed can compare pre-FGM sensitivity to post-FGM sensitivity. If sensitivity during sex is a main factor, then neither the FGM victims or circumcised males have a point of reference. Yet in males that's considered acceptable but in women it's considered unacceptable. So neither FGM'd girls nor circumcised boys have a point of reference for sexual pleasure loss so they don't know what they're missing...yet when it comes to FGM, we say "She'll never experience full sexual pleasure and THAT'S HORRIBLE! WE MUST STOP THIS!" but with circumcision we say "He'll never experience full sexual pleasure and...ah it's not important." More on this below.

Now, I do want to clear up this little disagreement. I never meant to say that FGM and circumcision are THE SAME THING. I always meant to say that they are equally heinous and unjustifiable. From a procedure standpoint, they are different because you're talking about different genitalia with different designs and different compositions, so the affects of each surgery are different. Although I DO argue that since the penis and the clitoris (and subsequent substructures) are homologous, then these different surgeries are affecting the same tissues.

When you think about all the reasons why FGM is wrong, do you think that it's the combination of reasons that makes it wrong or do you think each reason is sufficient independent of the other?

EX:
1. FGM is used to subjugate women. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
2. FGM has no discernible medical benefit. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
3. FGM is excruciatingly painful. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
4. FGM removes substantial sexual pleasure. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
5. FGM can cause complications. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.
6. FGM is done on non-consenting children. That makes it wrong/unjustifiable.

Unless I miss my guess, any one of those 6 reasons are good enough on their own. Hell, look at #3...FGM is sometimes done with anesthesia, but even THAT doesn't overturn the conclusion. Each one of these considerations is strong enough on its own to oppose FGM in every capacity. Do you honestly believe that if there was even 1 counterargument in that list above that supported FGM that it would justify it? Now most of #1-6 MATCH EXACTLY with male circumcision and yet even the COMBINED reasons don't overturn the main reason why it's supported: a set of health problems with a .2-10% probability rate. And if I were smarter, I probably would have found a way to say that 3 posts ago, but, too late now.

I suppose it all boils down to our concept of what defines barbarism/violation? We've repeatedly butted heads over the memory issue: girls undergoing FGM often remember the incident, circumcised boys never remember their surgery. To me it seemed like the memory thing sounded too much like the whole "Tree in the forest" question: "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's present it does it make a sound?" Well, yes, because the physics of "sound" is such that observation isn't required to exist: a tree's mass would be affected by gravity in such a way that falling would cause vibrations in air strong enough for humans to detect (a feather landing on water probably makes sound, just none that we can hear). If a person is subjected to a painful procedure and doesn't remember it does that mean the procedure doesn't violate their integrity, effect their mind, or contradict the principles of our culture or offend our humanity?

That's why I tried to point out the rare occasions when FGM is done on infant girls, because then an unjustifiable procedure and a "justifiable" procedure share the same key ingredient that otherwise separates them; and in those cases that consideration seems irrelevant in the positions many of you take, and that baffles me. It's like discovering a major anomaly with canon-changing potential and then ignoring it "just because".

And the empathy argument is very important. Here's a point I've been trying to make: I DON'T HAVE A VULVA...AND YET I AM STILL AGAINST FGM. I CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH AN ANATOMY I DON'T EVEN HAVE! MY EMPATHY/SYMPATHY FOR FGM VICTIMS ISN'T CONTINGENT ON MEDICAL DATA. I don't look at FGM and say "before I form an empathic response, let me consult this gynecology research...EEEK! Okay, now I have a validated opinion!" But women in general seem to be doing it this way.

And I'm not saying that it's ONLY WOMEN supporting circumcision, because there's lots of men too. But I have noticed that an overwhelming number of women seem to have an indifferent attitude to something affecting men that they want sympathy for in their own gender. Women all over are saying "We want your understanding and empathy for females enduring FGM...but we don't extend that same extrospection to men, it's irrelevant". If I can step into someone else's shoes for an issue that doesn't affect me, then why can't others reciprocate? Isn't that selective empathy, which denotes a mild form of depraved indifference or at LEAST bias?

Well, I wasn't saying that ALL reasons for circumcision were anti-male...I was more arguing that the gender bias was ONE OF THE MOTIVATIONS for ignoring the overlapping aspects of FGM & circumcision.

^ My major question is: "What are you still complaining about" and yet you explained things I don't ask for.

Circumcision does not concern me in a single millimeter. I never circumcise or cause it to any primate.

 

[locker669]

Comparing male and female circumsisions is like comparing apples to jet planes.

Is there a doctor (or nurse) in the house?