[Commentary] On Male Genital Mutilation

[belinus]

It seems odd but I have to laugh when I hear someone get hysterical about female genital mutilation happening in the world. I laugh not out of any sick sense of humor or misogyny, but rather at the hypocrisy of these individuals. They cry about women in far off countries having the clitoris forcibly removed but yet they are strangely silent, and in

Comments

I heart math.

[dianak]

I definitely am against the procedure. I view it as no different than when a girl is held down and her clitoris is not-so-surgically removed.

The problem with this is, in EVERY instance of a female genital mutilation case, the female is then unable to enjoy anything sexual at all, whereas in circumsician, this is a rare "oops". Yes, anecdotal evidence shows us where there are extreme cases of poor baby boys being mutilated, but it is anecdotal at best. I might consider this to be a more extreme problem *if* it were more than, say, 2% of the circumsized population. a quick google search revealed an american association of pediatrics study that says that in less than 1% of all circumsions there arecomplications, and some of those complications are as simple as a little excess bleeding and infection, taken care of immediately with no further complications.

So, realistically, let's throw some numbers on here... world population is 6.5 billion. US population is ~300 million. According to this site, the growth rate is roughly 14.14

Re: I heart math.

[belinus]

I do not view them the same in regards to the medical aspect since the procedures in and of themselves because they cannot be compared in that way against each other. Circumcision is generally performed by a medical practitioner or someone trained specifically to do it (i.e. a Rabbi) and are done using sterile instruments in a clean/sterile environment. Clitorectomies are generally performed in antithetical conditions

Re: I heart math.

[dianak]

If the situations were reversed, I doubt the stats would change, as there is evidence that circumsicions have been done for centuries. Those weren't all done in "sterile environments".

I could also argue the rest, but honestly, I just want to point out that you are comparing two things you yourself said you couldn't compare... your argument that circumcision and clitorectomies are both mutilation in every case, when there's no real scientific evidence that a properly done circumcision has any side effects does NOT hold up. You may want to look at some of those links I sent you, as well as some more information regarding this, because you really can't say what you're saying and back it up with the arguments you've provided.

Re: I heart math.

[allamericanjock]

"In terms of the sexual side effects, they are identicle."
That's not true. You're talking about the psychological after-effects. In terms of physical side-effects: removing the clitoris (according to my understanding) reduces the woman's ability to be sexually stimulated DRAMATICALLY more than removing foreskin reduces a man's ability to be sexually stimulated.

Removing the entire clitoris, I would think, would be more like removing a man's entire penis.... a practice that is not condoned in any culture.

[allamericanjock]

1. male circumcision doesn't prevent guys from enjoying sex; that's a HUGE difference between male and female circumcision
   
2. there are studies that show that women (in our culture) find circumcized penes more sexually attractive, and that this may be part of the reason mothers tend to choose cicumcision for their male babies despite the lack of medical justification. If that's the case.... just think of it was "Baby's First Plastic Surgery". ;-)

[dianak]

There's tons of justification, what's lacking is a flat-out, one way or the other, yes or no from the medical community. There's nothing wrong with either circumsized or non-circumsized boys, and there are good reasons for both. And there's medical standing to back both up

[belinus]

Clitoris, like foreskin, just assists in the achievement of an orgasm but it is not a prerequisite. Otherwise gay men would not be able to cum merely from getting fucked in the ass like some do.

Pam Jacobs put it best... the biggest sexual organ in the body is the brain.

all it does is lessen what women go through in those countries, and nothing gets done about it.

No, because getting female genital mutilation to end requires various cultures to shift those practices. A lot of countries where the practice occurs have outlawed it already. That is infinitely more difficult than persuading a profession to stop a practice.

[dianak]

Jon, you're full of shit. I can't discuss this with you anymore. I can't believe you are comparing cutting off the fingernail to cutting off the tip of the finger. And I bet Pam Jacobs would cringe if she knew you were using her to justify mutilating the female body in this way.

[ajnovak]

I caution you against one very serious fallacy

[belinus]

It is an accurate comparisson because it is another individual with more power forcing the choice on the anatomy of another individual.

[allamericanjock]

Oh yeah, THAT makes it equivalent.

And what makes you think that people should have choices about everything, anyway?

You're innoculated with certain vaccines before you can make a choice about it. Is that a horrible invasion of yor privacy? As an infant, ALL of your choices are made for you: what to wear, what to eat. Are you going to contest that, as well?

[belinus]

The vaccines are a medical neccesity. Clothing and food are provided because, as infants and children, we are generally unable to procure them on our own and therefore must rely on parent/guardian assistance in that regard.

Should a girl be forced to get breast implants because her parent(s) do not like how her chest looks?