Male Genital Mutilation

[smileyeagle1021]

1st one, yes it is ethical, the man of his free will gave up his will to his parents
2nd, definitely not, he's old enough to make his own decision
3nd, also ethical, he is old enough to make his own decision, even if that decision is to let his parents make it for him
4th, grey area, legally his word means nothing, but a 17 year old definitely is old enough to make decisions regarding their body
5th, grey area, once again, legally his word means nothing, but a 12 year old I'd say is at a stage where I wouldn't trust him either way he answered.
6th, not ethical... he's old enough that if it wasn't important at birth it not so important it can't wait.
7th, grey area, I'd say it is right for a parent to assume that a child will follow in the same religion... so religious reasons I'd agree with... asthetic, no way in hell at that age.

[BlaqueKatt]

So, you would advocate mutilating every male to provide an uncertain amount of benefit to reduce transmission of a virus that cannot even be detected in the men?

Because there is no test for it and it can lie dormant for years-I cold get cervical cancer from my husband-or if I were to be raped

I do hope, then, that you would advocate female circumcision, as this has a benefit in reduction of HIV transmission (by 50%). Or did you refuse to answer that question deliberately?

Hmm let's see comparing decrease of sensitivity during sex to something that completely removes all sensation, can cause death during childbirth-leaking of fecal matter and urine out the vagina(not to mention the fact that FGM is usually NOT done at birth-standard age is around age 12-an infant won't remember,and they actually use lidocaine or a dorsal nerve block on the males-females don't get that luxury.

Yeah that's logical- In addition FGM is done to prevent a woman from enjoying sexual activity thus subjigating her to her husband, and preventing her from cheating on her spouse and remaining a virgin on her wedding day-male circumcision was a covenant with God-weather or not you believe in that religion that is it's origin-not to enslave-they tell the 12-13 year old girls-God made a mistake and put an evil piece of flesh between your legs, we have to remove it to keep you from evil.

From the World Health Orginazation
FGM is often considered a necessary part of raising a girl properly, and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage.
FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is believed by some to reduce a woman's libido and help her resist "illicit" sexual acts. When a vaginal opening is covered or narrowed , for example, a woman is physically hindered from premarital sex. Afterwards, a painful procedure is needed to reopen the closure to enable sexual intercourse.
FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are “clean” and "beautiful" after removal of body parts that are considered "male" or "unclean".

Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types:

* Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, rarely, the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) as well.
* Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).
* Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, and sometimes outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

immediate complications can include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage (bleeding), tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and injury to nearby genital tissue.

Long-term consequences can include:

* recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;
* cysts;
* infertility;
* the need for later surgeries. For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) is surgically changed to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth, and sometimes stitched close again afterwards;
* an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths.

Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice(FGM), practitioners often believe the practice has religious support. Male circumcision is a covenant with God.


Yeah that's logical-FGM is the equivalent of totally removing the penis-not just the foreskin-notice all classifications include REMOVAL of the clitoris-not just removal of the clitoral hood which would be the direct equivalent of circumcision

where's the proof to back that claim up(50% reduction in HIV for women who have undergone FGM)-I gave mine

Dang. Too bad. I guess that, unlike most vaccines, once you turn 27, it stops working for you.

Maybe try reading the information from the MANUFACTURER that states NOT TO BE GIVEN TO ANYONE OVER THE AGE OF 27.

"why is GARDASIL only for girls and young women ages 9 to 26?

GARDASIL is only for girls and young women ages 9 to 26 because the clinical trials for GARDASIL included females within this age group. GARDASIL was initially studied in this age group because the majority of women who have HPV are exposed to it in their teens and 20s."


and I notice you conveniently didn't address the fact that the stats are 1 in 4 have had HPV

and actually there is a procedure to restore the male foreskin-you cannot restore the clitoris that is remove during FGM

[Pedersen]

I was going to give a long, drawn out reply, BlaqueKatt. I'm not.

From your perspective, it's acceptable to mutilate men, but not women. Your responses defend it on the grounds that more bad things can happen to women when they are mutilated than can happen to men. Furthermore, women can benefit from male mutilation, and that adds legitimacy to the practice.

Simply put, your entire thesis is wrong. Mutilation of others for personal benefit is wrong, even when that mutilation can save a life. Especially when that mutilation is not required, due to alternatives like condoms (both male and female).

And you have shown that you believe it to be acceptable that it should be forced on people who are actually incapable of consenting to having it done. I pity any men in your life.

[blas87]

Forgive my ignorance, as I feel I may not know as much as I should about this.

Is circumcision basically giving the penis a head? I have never seen a penis without a head on it in my life.

Every guy I've ever dated or slept with has said he was circumsized as an infant.

I really don't see the issue? I don't mean to be rude, but isn't an uncircumsized penis funny looking?

[anriana]

Forgive my ignorance, as I feel I may not know as much as I should about this.

Is circumcision basically giving the penis a head? I have never seen a penis without a head on it in my life.

Every guy I've ever dated or slept with has said he was circumsized as an infant.

I really don't see the issue? I don't mean to be rude, but isn't an uncircumsized penis funny looking?

You think we should mutilate people because they're "funny looking" unmutilated?

[Norton]

I really don't see the issue? I don't mean to be rude, but isn't an uncircumsized penis funny looking?

I think it depends on your culture. At my old job, we had a lot of Hispanic immigrant employees, and the subject of circumcision came up one day. The American girls agreed that they prefer the look of a circumsized penis, while the Hispanic girls basically said "Ewww!" to it. One of the immigrant guys joined in the convo and mentioned he was uncircumsized, and that you could only tell the difference when "it's sleeping". I've seen pics of flaccid, uncircumsized penises, and I happen to think they look like something you'd purchase from the deli for a party platter, and are kinda silly looking.

Of course, the fact that I find them less aesthetically pleasing shouldn't trump the man's desire to be cut or uncut as he wishes. People mutilate themselves in many different ways because they find the end result attractive, but it should be a choice, and not something forced on them. But that's in a perfect world, where everyone is allowed to wait until adulthood to make such personal decisions. Many parents try to mold their children into what they think is ideal, whether it be for religious or social reasons, or just the sake of tradition, without thinking that the child may choose a different path at some point in their life.

[smileyeagle1021]

You think we should mutilate people because they're "funny looking" unmutilated?

"mutilation" is in the eye of the beholder... as if "funny looking"... it's really all about cultural norms... not saying the norms are necessarily right, just pointing it out.

In the US circumcision is seen as the norm so it isn't considered mutilation by the mainstream and uncircumcised, due to it being different, is considered funny looking by the mainstream for the same reason.

[blas87]

Wow...I never meant it in that context, but alright then, whatever you like.

I was just thinking if what my (little) knowledge on the subject is true, I do prefer to look at a circumsized penis.

[Rapscallion]

I'm looking at this from a different point of view. Why should anyone - barring religious or medical reasons - remove an organ that is healthy and not causing any problems? That just seems inane to me, as does the religious reasoning.

Rapscallion

[Norton]

I always thought the foreskin was removed to prevent infections later in life. I might be misinformed, though.

Even if that's true though, I liken it to the fact that the Kosher diet does not allow for pork. Back when Kosher rules were first implemented, trichinosis in pork was a common problem. Now, the pork we buy is safe to eat, yet the tradition of avoiding it still stands in some religions. The problems that were once avoided by circumsizing infants can now be taken care of safely without resorting to removing the foreskin, but circumcision is continued for the sake of tradition.

[Pedersen]

Is circumcision basically giving the penis a head? I have never seen a penis without a head on it in my life.

Actually, no, it's taking something off of the penis. When born, the male has a piece of skin known as the foreskin. The foreskin covers the entirety of the head of the shaft. Circumcision removes that foreskin.

Sometimes, other complications occur. Excessive bleeding, infection, and even accidental removal of the entire head of the penis. In some of the more extreme cases, so much was accidentally removed that the decision was made to make the male into a female, appearance wise.

I really don't see the issue?

The issue, to me, is twofold: First comes the issue of choice. This is performed, typically, on infants. These are people who are unable to either give or deny consent to a procedure to remove a perfectly functioning part of the body. The choice is removed before it can ever be made.

Second is equality: As I've linked to elsewhere in this thread, females are given full protection from all forms of genital mutilation, from removal of the clitoral hood (which is the direct equivalent of male circumcision) all the way up through type 4 FGM. Males are told they are not worthy of the same protection.

I don't mean to be rude, but isn't an uncircumsized penis funny looking?

Not rude, it's a valid question. I have to point out, though, that to a sexually experienced male coming from a region that practices type 4 FGM (clitoris removed, both sets of labia removed), your vagina would be funny looking.

[smileyeagle1021]

Not rude, it's a valid question. I have to point out, though, that to a sexually experienced male coming from a region that practices type 4 FGM (clitoris removed, both sets of labia removed), your vagina would be funny looking.

um *cough* I could make a witty comment about that... but I won't

so, on a more serious note... that kind of brings the topic back to social norms. If someone truly doesn't know any better are they really being affected? Personally I think yes, but it is a question that at least needs to be considered.

[BlaqueKatt]

Especially when that mutilation is not required, due to alternatives like condoms (both male and female).

these are not readily available in countries like Africa where the spread of HIV is the highest-and for myself well I have a level 5 latex allergy-using a condom would actually kill me(I carry an Epi-pen)-the "sheepskin" ones only prevent pregnancy and the non-latex polyurethane have a higher breakage rate and the box actually states that they are unsure if they prevent the spread of HIV or other STIs, as they're still testing the effectiveness. I am not the only person in the US with a latex allergy-so we either have to totally abstain from sexual activity or decide if it's worth the risk. And due to the fact that HPV and HIV can both lie dormant for years-"getting tested" before having sex doesn't prove much.

And I'm over the age of 27 so no Guardasil shot for me-I get to sweat it out every year waiting for test results, and praying I don't have cancer.

I pity any men in your life.

Nice Personal attack

For the record-not that it's any of your business but my son was circumcised against my wishes when HIS FATHER took him in for his 2 day check up-"because he wanted him to look the same as he did".

You asked for a reason for it to be done-I gave you a reason-I NEVER said I supported it, show me where I did-you said I did, I can just see the other side, and can see how anything that may prevent the spread of HIV in a country where condoms are rarer than unicorns, may be a good thing.

You compared it to FGM which is not even close to the same thing-for the reasons I listed previously.

Are you aware that if a woman has a c-section the doctor routinely removes her appendix?

Are you upset about that? It's healthy tissue being removed for "no good reason" Or is that ok because it's internal and being done on a woman-and it's done without informed consent-you probably have never read the consent form for a c-section-and with the signature of two doctors the patient doesn't have to give consent at all for any emergency procedure.

[smileyeagle1021]

Are you aware that if a woman has a c-section the doctor routinely removes her appendix?

Are you upset about that? It's healthy tissue being removed for "no good reason" Or is that ok because it's internal and being done on a woman-and it's done without informed consent-you probably have never read the consent form for a c-section-and with the signature of two doctors the patient doesn't have to give consent at all for any emergency procedure.

in fairness though with that comparison... the apendix serves no purpose... it's an evolutionary left over... not having it (to my knowledge) does not affect a person's life. While I'm skeptical on the severity of the effect of not having a foreskin, but it is something that does definitely affect someone's life.

[Rapscallion]

I saw something a while ago that spoke about research into the appendix. There's a thought that it plays a significant role in our early development, but then is useless.

Not really going to affect the average person undergoing a C-section, I have to admit.

Rapscallion