Protesting Circumcision

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

1. FGM (incuding FGC) and male circumcision (MC) are constructs of archaic religious practices that have become engrained in our culture and are unnecessary practices.

.

Agreed.

2. FGM robs a girl/woman of the ability to ever have sexual gratification. MC does not.

.

Disagree. This is why I said you guys are misinformed. Many times, female circumcision entails simply removing the hood of the clitoris. That's the extent of it, and it is done purely for societal acceptance later on in a woman's life (much like male circumcision is done for in the western world). It does not rob the female of ever having sexual gratification.

Even in cases where the end of the clitoris is removed, it still doesn't rob the female of sexual gratification. Unlike males, females have nerve endings throughout their genital region which can lead to orgasm without having the entire clitoris present.

Further, male circumcision is argued to leave those males more sensitive to touch, as a result, leading to earlier ejaculation. In other words, the pleasure/length of sex is decreased due to the increased sensitivity, so it actually shortens the length of pleasure circumcised men can have. Yet this is commonly ignored by proponents of male circumcision and opponents of female circumcision.

3. FGM had the intent of subjugation.

.

Not in many cases.

Just look at the differences in terms used by the western world for the two similar practices. For guys, we are mutilating the body and removing a significant amount of skin. We just call that "circumcision." In females, we are removing LESS skin than the males, sometimes taking more tissue overall (but not by much), and call that female genital mutilation. See the bias in just the names we use?

Both are cultural practices which are barbaric and cause unnecessary pain and damage.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

rifle has some legit points, but I am not aware of any medical benefit of female genital mutilation; the WHO agrees. For disclosure, I chose to have my son circumcized but there are very good ethical points to be made otherwise. Strawman but relevant alert: I would assume those against circumcision are also against giving pre pubescent kids exogenous hormones for sex identify issues as well, since they also don't meet criteria for informed consent but this goes on as well.

However, there are some medical benefits of male circumcision. Is it enough to recommend it across the board? no. But there are some medical benefits. I saw a 70 year old guy this week that needed a circ for phimosis. I bet he wishes he had one when he was 1 day old and not 70. Anecdotal evidence is not a reason for medical decision making, but if we're going to split hairs here....

As another point, the WHO classifies female genital mutilation into four types. Type I and II are most commonly practiced, but I have never seen a break down of which is more common between type I and II. Make no mistake, type II (partial removal of clitoris and labia minora) should not even be considered in the same category as far as long term sensitatization/sexual issues with that of a circumcision. It's not even close. We can debate the ethics but the physical outcomes/manifestation of problems between a routine circumcision and a type II FGM are not comparable.

 

[GK4Herd]

M stands for mutilation.

 

[GK4Herd]

I'm aware of the classifications (I read about this the last time it came up) and know that the terms are evolving. One of the reasons the WHO is trying to make a distinction is to prevent conversations like we're having. That's why I specifically said FGM and not FGC.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Here is some light reading from the WHO on male circumcision. Keep in mind much of their rec's deal with HIV, a problem we don't see as much in America. So a middle to upper class american kid may not have as much medical benefit as a sub saharan African kid.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/rtis/9789241596169/en/

"Male circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide, and is undertaken for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical. There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Demand for safe, affordable male circumcision is expected to increase rapidly, and country-level decision-makers need information about the sociocultural and medical determinants of circumcision, as well as risks of the procedure, in the context of comprehensive HIV prevention programming."

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Here is the American Academy of Pediatrics take on it:

"After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs. "

 

[sistersville]

I'm glad I was circumcised. Hate to look down and have a penis that looks like a headless penis. Is not not cleaner

 

[herdfan06]

Arguing over mythical dick sizes.

Speak for yourself.

A couple of things...up to .4 round down, .5 to .9 round up...just saying.

Round down? More like round up to the next even number.

Does anyone have a diminished ability to experience pleasure?

Unfortunately I was not sexually active as an infant so I do not know.

 

[Dreh_Nagi_HC_IM]

I'm glad I was circumcised. Hate to look down and have a penis that looks like a headless penis. Is not not cleaner

Imagine the stares you would get at the bathroom urinals during football and basketball games. There's always that one gay guy that doesn't follow protocol when using the wall urinals. You know he would gawk over at your junk, and question you about your headless crank.