I think I have a clear idea of how circumsision works in Africa.
For the boys, they first ***** the *****, then ******* the ********** to ensure that the ****** is not **********ed. As a cautionary procedure, they ****.
For the girls, although they circumsize them a bit later, the process is much the same, ecept that they ***** instead of *******ing, thus ******ing the ***.
quote:they use glass or razor baldes which carry tons of germs. these germs are probably the reason y africa has such a large AIDS problem.
uh, no actually. high rates of unprotected sex, sex with multiple people, having an extremely young populace, inability to finance educational and medical assistance, along with HIV having likely existed longer in africa than anywhere else are the reasons that africa's HIV/AIDS problem is so rampant. not the use of dirty glass or razor blades.
FGM is not right, just imagine how much pain that causes to the girl when its being done. we have pain killers for giving birth, but they dont use any to literally cut into ur genitals? ouch. and how is this ritual keeping the girl more pure when they use glass or razor baldes which carry tons of germs. these germs are probably the reason y africa has such a large AIDS problem.
its ok to type out words like *****oris, ****** and other parts of the body. all the ******'s make it really hard to read a post. and your not using anything offensivly or saying anything dirty so theres nothing to be ashamed about. as for geniatl mutilation its wrong. on girls and guys. there is no benifit for guys. any problems caused by not circumcising can be avoided by proper hygiene. it causes intense pain for the babies and there is no reason for it. and for girls it is just wrong. it is painful and often dangerous to health. and it is done so women have no sexual pleasure. it is supposed to keep them faithful to their husbands. this process is disgusting and wrong. for both boys and girls. it causes intense pain and emotional distress later on in life. there are no health benefits and if we werent supposed to feel pleasure from sex humans wouldnt have evolved the way they did. people need to stop screwing with nature.
Excuse my wording. I was trying to differntiate the opinions of Dante and the researched and published efforts of actual medical professionals. I didn't mean to insinuate they were indisputable. I recently formed the opinion that I would side against circumcision, and if it has already happened it wasn't necessarily a good thing. However, it's cultural acceptance precludes an effective condemnation of the practice. As far as female circumcision, in much the same way it seems to be widespread and culturally accepted, no matter how heinous a crime it is. The pain inherent in having the male foreskin or the female cl1toris is not something one wishes anyone be forced to endure. Female circumcision removes more flesh, is done usually with a blunt object, and the inent is more ruthless. But neither requires or event expects the consent of the child. Both in practice limit sexual pleasure and are done for religious or cultural reasons. To be clear, comparisons can be drawn and the medical literature on both is extensive enough to warrant at least reconsideration of the practice. Female circumcision is brutal and dehumanizing. The Western World condemns it as barbaric. It causes unessecary pain and long term mental and physical anguish. Those peoples circumsizing thier females however, don't do the same to the males. It is an aspect of the culture in the same way male circumcision is in the West. There are most certainly tangible differences in the effects, but whatever female circumcision does, on a lesser level, there is evidence that male circumcision does the same and those things should be taken into consideration.
no, what dante posted was opinions and observations from medical journals. as a medical student, i can assure you that there are big differences between journals and what is accepted as fact in the medical community.
there are certain diseases, including bowen's disease of the peni$ and chancroid of the peni$ that have a higher incidence in uncircumsribed males. this is largely due to hygiene - as evidenced by the lower incidence here in the US vs. developing nations. so the medical advantage of circumcision is really more of an issue of hygiene. nevertheless, this is the motivation behind many circumcisions. (this is taken from Robbins: Pathology of Disease, THE definitive book of pathology in any medical school. still, it's open to criticism)
the critics of the anti-circumcision papers include: is the measurement of heart rate and sympathetic discharge an adequate measure of pain? until we can more accurately define pain, these are simply bioparameters that have correlations with sympathetic responses by the body. i've personally performed 2 circumcisions and observed a total of ~10. does it look painful? yes, it does. is it inhumane pain? well, i can only speculate, but since the babies only cried for ~ 3 minutes during the 8 minute procedure, and the settle down immensely with suckling a bottle nipple, i assume that it's not mind-shattering pain. again, i can only speculate. but using bioparameters isn't the most accurate way of gauging pain, either.
regardless of the medical necessity/irrelavance of circumicision, the intent behind it causes it to be extremely different than female genital mutilation. you are talking about prohibiting a female from achieving org@sm versus possibly less sensitivity in sexual performance on the part of the male. to me, the goals of FGM and male circumcision are so disparate that you can never say that they are basically the same.
my point is not that circumcision is some benign procedure - indeed, it's a painful, elective procedure that really is not medically necessary. but to say it's the same thing as female genital mutilation is too much of a stretch. that's what i object to, commonsense.
About half-way down this page Dante has three posts which relate the practice of male circumcision to female circumsicion. Parts of it are opinion but the longest post is medical facts. If you want to understand the reasoning and pain, damage involved I think he also gives a lik. I remain undecided, but kg, I think it's worth reading.
no, male circumcision is performed for either religious or hygenic beliefs. female genital mutilation is performed with the expressed intent to inhibit sexual pleasure in the female. this is supposedly to deny women the motivation to "cheat" on their (non-circumscribed) husbands. male circumcision and female genital mutilation are nothing alike.
i personally think that FGM is a horrible and sadistic practice born from a deep-seated male inferiority complex and would jail anyone attempting this procedure here in the states. but i'm loathe to dictate what other countries' people can and cannot do.
From what I've read, male and female circumcision are done for basically the same reasons, hygiene, lowering sexual feeling, and of course all the religious reasons. neither one makes much sense to me. perhaps abolishing circumcision in the US would be a good way to teach the rest of the world. it would be hypocritical to tell Africa what it's doing is wrong, when we are doing the same thing. now, I realize that FGM is varied and dangerous, but, if they made it uniform and used clean tools, would you be ok with it?. on a side note, I agree that we shouldn't use our militiry to force them to conform.
I think it's a horrible thing to do. You can't compare getting ear piecings or even circumcisions to FGM. Piercings and circumcisions don't affect day to day life. FGM causes increases a girl's chance of HIV, makes her experience painful burning while peeing (not to maention that they are only able to pee one drop at a time.) And makes her period last for weeks because she can only release one drop at a time. Even the process itself is horrible. In Somalia, "gypsies" travel around doing the multilation. They often use the same razor for several women. Sometimes they don't even use razors, they use thorns. (Which is what they used on Waris Dirie, a Somalian super model. I reccomend reading her story. It helped me to understand how the girls it happens to feel about it.) And the girls who have been mutilated don't feel anything when they lose their virginity. The thought process behind this? It's not a woman's place to feel pleasure, just to have children. Only the man is allowed to feel anything. I do agree that it's not the U.S. place to step in. But I think the governments of the countries where it happens should consider abolishing it.
remember the aztecs? europe thought they had barbaric customs, ie. daily human sacrifices, so they fixed the problem by killing millions of aztecs, enslaving those who lives, and steling their land. MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THAT TO AFRICA! It is never good when one culture imposes its customs and morals upon another.
I can't say this is the most fun to read ever. The idea is... well, I've always found it rather repulsive. I mean, any sort of work in that area would be very cruel, atleast mutational work, not surgary, and I'm meaning in countries with out pain killers such as that we are accustomed to.
Circumsizing a baby boy I don't think is wrong. I can imagine a teenage guy being rather embarresed about not being so, 'round the age fooling around begins. Maybe it does cause pain to the baby, I'm not denying this, but... Do you remember anything about your infantry?
It's just wrong. I read that when women get a circumsion it can stop women from having ****sums. It also causes a burning feeling with urin*****.It also causes problems with child birth and increases chances for infections and diseases. AIDS/HIV is a world problem so yes I think the U.S. should step up and do something.
Topics 
