To be absolutely steaming about the fact that people think unnecessary genital mutilation is OK?

[Gunnerbean]

I've been having a debate about this on another site and am staggered by the amount of people who are quite blase about it and can't get worked up about it and seem to think it's perfectly OK, and even perfectly acceptable!!

FFS if you smack a child on the street you risk arrest for assault or abuse yet people are allowed to unnecssarily ritually circumscise male babies without anaesthetic? It beggars belief that this has a place in a so-called enlightened civilised society and can be legal.

I have literally got steam coming out of my ears, some of the exchanges I've had have made my heart literally pound with anger and I think my feelings on this issue might actually make me able to understand how strongly those animal activists feel!!!

I think I need to have a lie down...

BTW the AIDS studies have taken place on Africa, and do show that uncircumcised men are more likely to get HIV. Why? Because they are uncircumcised? Or is it that the cause of them being uncircumcised (not having the money to do it) the same thing which leads them to riskier behaviour wrt to AIDS (uneducated about safe sex, no money for condoms, etc.).

EIther way, not relevant in the UK.

Well, I think it probably is cruel but still don't see that either a mastectomy or female circumcision is the same

Mastectomy- breasts- bestb option for feeding the newborn baby for health and development (not only but scientifically best)

Of course men are bothered, and don't be so hypocritical, removal of the clitoral hood (preuce) is pretty much exactly the same as removal of the penile prepuce.

Well no, female circumcision doesn't neessarily remove the clitoris. About 100 million Indonesian women are circumcised, usually by cutting into, or partly removing the clitoral hood. Not a good thing, but not something that entirely destroys sexual pleasure.

The male foreskin contains far more nerve endings than the clitoral hood.

Have you been circumcised (recognise thats personal so feel free to ignore)#

Just that no, my ex wasn't bothered

and am not being hypocritical actually, that would mean I was saying it was OK and I never did. I said my only reservation against banning was that it would put babies at risk of more procedures being carried out under less than ideal circumsytances (ie away from medical support)- pretty much the same as what happened with backstreet abortions.

So whilst I disagree with you analogies, hypocrite I flipping well am not

well peachy...my dh doesn't find sex unpleasant, but the tip of his penis is not as sensitive and needs well "rougher" stimulation...so...it does effect him, and in a way sometimes effects me, because I get erm, rubbed raw more easily....iykwim....

sorry the hypocrite comment was directed at Unquietdad, who said he had nothing against chopping bits off little boys, but objected to doing it to little girls.

It can be a bit tricky getting context when posts are being added so quickly so that the post you're responding to is no longer current.

I didn't find that but heck, was many years ago. Neiotehr did I aprticualrly like it mind, much prefer unadulterated article.

But as I have stated, my instinct in this are not absed on anything other that concern about what could happen if it was banned. have some knowledge opf Muslim and Jewish communities and really don't think it would stop, just be driven underground instead.

It's godawful if a child has an infection following any surgery, esp. unnecessary stuff- triply so though perhaps if aprents are too scared to seek help before it is too late because of penalties.

Though I suspect most would just go abroad.

I was always pro-circumcision because (freakily) I've known two men who have torn their foreskins and it's scarred me for life!!!!

I am obviously built like a pencil sharpener

Anyway fortunately I had girl babies so never had to inflict my terrors on them!

I've no idea why I shared that

Fair enough someguy- we all do that from time to time!

Apart from everything else, I wouldn't want to take the risk that my DS would resent me for it.

My husband is one of those men who resents his parents for circumcising him, it deeply affects their otherwise great relationship. It is hard to forgive the unnecessary removal of part of your body.

If DS decides when he is an adult that he would like to be circumcised he can do so, but he can't get it back once it is gone.

This is another reason why it's so important to be continually DISrespectful of superstition in public debating forums. People are always hiding behind superstitious privilege to justify this moronic, pointless mutilation - isn;t it funny how there are practically no cultural traditions or superstitions which involve the forcible infliction of pain or danger or indignity on adult males? It's always the women and the children getting silenced or excluded or banished or having bits cut off them.

Actually there are quite a few SGB,though they tend to be practiced by relatively small ethnic groups.

Thinking Shi-ite islam and self flagellation, tribal mutilation at moment of manhood..............

Course as a Quaker I always advocate mutilation through my superstition

But I've had this debate, and it's like being stuck in groundhog daya nd you have your beleifs firmly sewn up so why waste energy?
And indeed why respect your beleifs coz you sure as heck don't mine.

Anyway

Is there a possible midway in this in making it illegal for men to be circumcised outside a hospital or surgical environment? thereby not 'forcing' (I know, but some poele will see it as such) people undergoround, but removing the extraneous risk factors?

Whilst I agree that these superstitions are unnecessary SGB, men are in fact expected to get circumcised if they convert to Islam as an adult.

Although of course the restrictions are much greater on women. I know a Dutch woman who married a Muslim man, who ponced about with his robes on everywhere pretending to be a good Muslim, and she was expected to fall into line as a Muslim. Eventually he dumped her, because he was shagging some other woman, but she'd fallen for all the hocus pocus, and was properly indoctrinated as a Muslim, so she put an ad in a Muslim lonely hearts column and got a Moroccan Muslim husband who kept her locked up and said she wasn't allowed to meet any men unless her husband was there.

And look at thw hole rape of Duinah thing

For the perceived rape (and for rape assume any sex outside marriage, consenting including, the novel The Red Tent did an interesting take on it) an entire tribe was wiped out after being circumcised as payment

Men do get it too. Women perhaps get rap in shedloads but taht doesn't mean they are immune

Though eprhaps there is a PhD in the fact that men tend to ascribe religious limitayions to ewomen, but also men prescribe it to men..... are women just tolerant, non violent or colpletely disempowered in too many areas?

Apologises for that, anyway can't afford aphD LOl

SomeGuy - I think you meant me not UnquietDad. We do often get mixed up.

Please can you say more why you think I am being hypocritcal?

We need to be careful about the definitions. The WHO Type I,II,II,IV definitions of female circumcision are on this Wikipedia page.

Type Ia female circumcision is similar to male circumcision in removal of the clitoral hood but can lead to nerve damage and scarring. The other types are much more severe than male circumcision and nowhere near functionally similar. They are mutiliations pure and simple.

AbetaDad....hmm...tbh, my main gripe is always the "wihtout anaestesia-part" of this debacle...
whilst not believing in circumcision itself (other than for medical reasons)...the without anaestetic is the barbaric part...and imo, it is only a mutilation when done "unnecessary"...if necessary than that Body part was not "quite right" and therefore needed to go...

and if you define mutilation like the following:

"mu⋅ti⋅late  /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
Use mutilation in a Sentence
?verb (used with object), -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing. 1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

1. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

----------------

Origin:
1525?35; < L mutilātus (ptp. of mutilāre to cut off, maim), equiv. to mutil(us) maimed, mutilated + -ātus -ate 1

Related forms:

mu⋅ti⋅la⋅tion, noun
mu⋅ti⋅la⋅tive, mu⋅ti⋅la⋅to⋅ry  /ˈmyutləˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [myoot-l-uh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA , adjective
mu⋅ti⋅la⋅tor, noun

Synonyms:

1. damage, mar, cripple. 2. See maim. "

it would be wrong to call a necessary surgical procedure mutilation....but the same thing if done unnecessarily could/should be classed a mutilation...if that makes sense at all...

I do agree with Peachy though, that making it illegal is not gonna stop the practice....so, it should be kept "legal" but only under proffessional medical care and under unaesthetic....

I've spoken to, and also had sex with women who have been subject to a clitoral hood-type circumcision (which IME is actually the removal of a tiny part of the clitoral hood). While I wouldn't endorse it as a procedure, I don't see it as being signifcantly different, except, as I said, that there are influential Westerners who like to circumcise boy babies, and like to say how wonderful it is, while simultaneously condemning procedures done to women, which are in some cases less invasive.

FairLady - yes agreed. The 'without anaesthetic' part of male circumcision is the part that concerns me.

SomeGuy - I think we actually agree with each other that we would not endorse Type I, II, III, IV female circumcisions?

Where we actually disgree is I think it is OK to do male circumcision under anaesthetic and you think it is always wrong except for medical reasons?

I think male circumcision is worse than some forms of female circumcision, and would endorse neither generally speaking.

Incidentally some women have elective circumcisions for medical reasons, to enhance sexual pleasure - in some cases the clitoral hood is too large and surgery can mean the clitoris gets more stimulation, more orgasms, etc. There is also labiaplasty, which I guess is somewhat analagous.

My boys are circumcised, P is a turkish Muslim, however where his Mum said, "Look at that bird" and lopped it off, my 2 had anasthetic. I wouldn't have contemplated it without. Some parents lie to their children and then just do it unexpectedly. No way.

And actually, this woman isn't allowed near my boys because of the pain she's capable of inflicting on a child. She also left a puppy in a park because she didn't want it anymore. So there you go.