Circumcision

[NeoDemocrat]

I just don't understand the point of men discussing about female circumcision. Female are equal to men(at least in civilized nations) and have a right to live just as men have. Females are not our slaves or our toys to play, neither are they experimental "subjects/animals".

True, but as there are few women who visit these forums (atleast in proportion to men) I am afraid we can't have their side of the story... unfortunately.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

The point of including female circumcision in the poll was to (a) see if anybody actually supported it and what their reasons were

,

A poll on eating newborn babies is also a good idea.There could be supporters in the forums....

and (b) because I view it as flat-out hypocrisy to accept one kind and condemn the other.

Like it is hypocrisy to approve hair-dying and oppose beheadings...
The only hypocrisy is that clitoridectomy, or genital mutilation is compared to a practise which-however useless-is harmless.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

So true, it is the same

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I don't see a problem with putting it in the poll, as it helps to raise awareness for a serious international problem that needs to be addressed. There may be people ignorant of the practice, that would otherwise help to stop it. Who know, one might stumble in here.

 

[King Alexander]

I don't see a problem with putting it in the poll, as it helps to raise awareness for a serious international problem that needs to be addressed. There may be people ignorant of the practice, that would otherwise help to stop it. Who know, one might stumble in here.

I've thought the same about why this thread is allowed to continue(if I understood well what ainwood wanted to say and that he thought that this discussion will keep on a mature level). Maybe we could alarm and inform the people about it: I'm sure many among us had no idea about this kind of brutality(female circumcision ).

EDIT: btw: once again religion causes much debate about stupid traditions

 

[yoshi74]

After i read Desert Flower from Waris Dirie, where the female circumcision is the topic, i was very angry (and am it still). This is as crime, and its a sad thing that the people who suffer from it do it to their next generation (this bloody ritual is done form elder woman to young girls).
For the male part i don't have much of a opinion. I'am complete and stay that way, but i don't heard many negetive side effects of it. So i don't really care what others do for this part.

 

[Evertonian]

I voted I'm opposed to both, and I am. But they aren't equivalent.

Female circumcision is brutal torture. Male circumcision is an unneccesary procedure that can have devastating effects on a man's life when it goes wrong. And it does go wrong in some cases. But in the cases when it doesn't, it's pretty harmless, so I don't believe it is equivalent to female circumcision.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

I heard circumcision could make your “male private part” bigger!

 

[yoshi74]

I heard circumcision could make your “male private part” bigger!

Make something bigger through cutting something off? i wouldn't bet on it

 

[Pirate]

A friend of a friend in Spain had it done as an adult, after he had already become sexually active, so in a direct comparison between "before" and "after" he claimed that circumcision actually increased sexual pleasure. He did it for religious and social reasons. Social reasons are a big part of the trend in America; since most men are circumcised and no real negative effects have been proven, many parents circumcise their sons so that they avoid stress or ridicule later in life (in high school locker rooms for example). I have also heard claims of decreased risk of cervical cancer for women whose partners are circumcised, though I have not done any research to verify that lately.

 

[CruddyLeper]

There are actually different forms of female circum...cirum... blast, can't spell.

Anyway, Pharonic is the worst. It means having to pass water, make love and have babies through an opening the size of a match head.

Although female cicum... is now illegal in the UK, this is very recent and it is beleived that some cultural groups continue performing it underground.

 

[CruddyLeper]

I heard circumcision could make your “male private part” bigger!

Quite true in my case.

Ballinitis exotica (I THINK that's the name) is when you can't pull the foreskin back.

In my case, it meant the penis couldn't swell because it was contained by the foreskin.

Now I've been chopped, this doesn't happen... the increase isn't a lot, but hey, every little bit helps...

... Much more useful is the loss of sensation which means I can keep "performing" longer.

If that's too much detail for you... I fell sorry for your hangups!

 

[bobgote]

I'd say no to it, because it is a religious tradition where the participant (or victim ) has no choice in the matter. If they choose to have it done later, well all well and good. But i also wouldn't want to ban male circumcision as what i said is only my opinion, and religious traditions, such as with the jews, are still valid.

So it was introduced in America and also in Britain and Australia. By the twentieth century, however, the British realised that it was completely useless and stopped it. The Americans and, I think, the Australians still do it.

It still happens here, but not very much to the best of my knowledge.
AFAIK it is a Jewish religious thing, that was inherited by some christians i guess. (but it is not an important thing for most christian denominations).

I heard circumcision could make your “male private part” bigger!

no, actually makes it smaller.

which reminds me that when this topic was brought up in high school during sex ed, only one guy in the class of probably 15 guys was circumcised. Dunno how that represents the whole population.

 

[crystal]

Circumcision is a barbaric remnant of the past.

 

[Johann MacLeod]

its funny how in the us we continue to do it to make everyone "normal" yet simply not doing it wold save a lot of money and still, make everyone "normal"

btw im against both kinds.

 

[joycem10]

I beleive in some states of the US it is an option; but I think in others it is still required.

Not true, even if such a law were passed it would quickly be held unconstitutional on both the state and federal level as a encroachment on the individual right of privacy.

Find me ONE modern IUS state law that is in force requiring male children to be circumcised.

 

[BassDude726]

I actually studied the practices of male and female circumcision (sometimes called FGM for "female genital mutilation") in one of my anthropology courses. The differences between the two are actually quite striking, which led me to put my vote in as opposing only female circumcision.

In male circumcision, there have been proven health benefits of having the practice done. For example, it is easier to maintain personal hygene after undergoing the process, and urinary tract infections decrease significantly, as well as other less common health problems. Also, in some cultures, women (and some men) prefer males who are circumcised to those who are not for "aesthetic" reasons.

Female circumcision, on the other hand, is a practice that is considered in many Western countries as barbaric. It consists of anything from minor surgical alterations to the female genitalia to complete removal of some parts and sewing up of the rest. It is primarily practiced in Islamic countries in Africa and some Middle Eastern ones, if I remember correctly, as well as southeast Asia. Contrary to male circumcision, FGM has the tendency to create significant medical problems, and physical pain for the woman during intercourse (which is one of the main reasons the practice is utilized). However, despite feminist movements in many of these countries, some women chose to continue the practice voluntarily because it conveys a certain measure of respect due to the fact that it preserves their chastity. And when women have been denied the option, some choose to practice it privately under questionable conditions, leading to death in some cases. This shows that it is a deeply ingrained part of the cultures in which it is practiced, and outlawing it is impractical.

Personally, unless his religion forbids it, I think all males should be circumcised because of the health benefits. It should be a matter of individual preference, but that presents the problem of people doing it soon after birth. In the case of female circumcision, which is done to pre-pubescent girls, I think it should be a matter of personal choice because they are of the age where they can decide for themselves.

 

[toh6wy]

I hope you mean it doesn't always have negative effects (other than, of course, nerve loss) rather than saying there are none.

Well, I can't say I'm an expert on the subject... what kinds of negative effects can happen? I've been circumcised since birth, and have had no problems that I can remember.

...and my sense of feeling is perfectly fine "down there," thankyouverymuch.

 

[BassDude726]

I've always wondered... (and I hope this doesn't get me banned or warned... it's simply a curious question)... does being uncircumcised act like a natural condom in the sense that it makes you, um, "longer lasting"?

 

[Dr Jimbo]

The argument that uncircumcised men have lower chances of catching HIV is bogus - this would only apply to unprotected sex, which is irresponsible. The best protection against HIV is not to not have a foreskin, it is to not indulge, or to use protection.
I am opposed to both, but more strongly against the female variety. I do find it strange that the US is the only country with widespread non-religious circumcision. If I was a parent who was worried about a male child being ribbed in a locker-room, I'd try to bring them up with a sense of self-confidence and comfort with their body, rather than submit them to unneccesary surgery...