The Genital Mutilation Thread

[Nat]

For conversations about genital mutilation.

[Nat]

My personal belief is that the genitals of children should not be mutilated.

I think designated male, female and intersex kids deserve to choose for themselves if they want alterations made to their bits.

[Lady Pamela]

A little information on the subject...To better understand what takes place...then you decide what can be done.

Also listed at the bottom are places we can join to help in this matter.

Even if that means just signing petitions or what have you.

http://www.members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html

[blush]

Thanks, Nat!

I'm repeating my post from the "breeders" thread:

It's interesting to me that we stand united (myself included) about genital mutilation in girls, but we don't seem to be as horrified by foreskin removal in boy infants?

I didn't want to quote others who posted about it, but I hope they'll join in the conversation.

[Unndunn]

Thanks, Nat!

I'm repeating my post from the "breeders" thread:

It's interesting to me that we stand united (myself included) about genital mutilation in girls, but we don't seem to be as horrified by foreskin removal in boy infants?

I didn't want to quote others who posted about it, but I hope they'll join in the conversation.

I just came across this thread and haven't seen any others about these issues. I'm not going to comment on the religious reasons for circumcision. I think of this as more of a medical issue. As a healthcare practitioner, I have to say that I don't think of male circumcision (removal of foreskin) as being comparible to the genital mutilation that is done to girls/women. Male circumcision is a way of decreasing risk of infection, including HIV. Female circumcision has not been shown to have any health benefits. Also, female circumcision isn't usually just the removal of skin (ie, the hood of the clitoris) it can be the removal of the entire clitoris.

a link from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

[Lady Pamela]

I just came across this thread and haven't seen any others about these issues. I'm not going to comment on the religious reasons for circumcision. I think of this as more of a medical issue. As a healthcare practitioner, I have to say that I don't think of male circumcision (removal of foreskin) as being comparible to the genital mutilation that is done to girls/women. Male circumcision is a way of decreasing risk of infection, including HIV. Female circumcision has not been shown to have any health benefits. Also, female circumcision isn't usually just the removal of skin (ie, the hood of the clitoris) it can be the removal of the entire clitoris.

a link from Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

I agree with what you said.

I also wanted to add...

Most girls having this done..Are actually done in a way that is very un sterile and usually without any numbing and with objects very dangerious.

Here in the states when males are done..They do numb the tops and only remove the very top layer..they do not take the whole thing off or mutilate it.

Just my opinion.

[Selenay]

I was recently party to a brit milah, which translates to "Ritual circumcision."

I'd never been to one, before, and I was Very Very Curious how it was all going to go down; after all, it was happening in the rec-room of an apartment building. Let me tell you for free, my first question was, "Is this even sanitary?" (It was. I had my doubts, but it was quick and very very clean.)

The second thing of which we were all assured by the man performing the circumcision is that, were anything at all even so much as a cough or a sneeze or a decline in pallor was wrong with the child, the circumcision would n-o-t NOT happen.

I won't go into the religious aspects of what all went on, but the boychik was well taken care of. The boy was tended to by a nurse who specifically handled post-circumcision babies, who was very insistent about the way Things Were Going To Be. Furthermore, he did not appear to be in any more distress than a child who's just received a shot.

The grandparents, on the other hand, looked like they suffered far more than their grandson... But they were the ones holding him still and steady while the circumcision was being done.

As for the medical benefits, an article from the New England Journal of medicine comments that none of the 1600 people involved in their study of penile cancer had been circumcised at birth; and the complication rate of a circumcision is as low as .13%, and the most common complication is excessive bleeding (New England Journal of Medicine, 1990).


Edited to add: I would, however, like to point out that not all circumcisions done in the United States are performed with anesthesia... Not all are done in hospitals, either; anesthesia is sometimes declined for fear of the risks it would pose to the child's body or the belief that it is unnecessary.

[betenoire]

Male circumcision is a way of decreasing risk of infection, including HIV.

Funny, that. And here I always thought that practicing safer sex and not sharing needles was the generally accepted way of decreasing the risk of HIV infection.

And as far as bacterial infections underneath the scrotum go, I would think that a far kinder way to combat that would be EDUCATING the caregivers of male children (and adults, in cases where they need assistance with that sort of thing) on proper cleaning and drying procedures. That strikes me as a whole lot more responsible than just lopping it off.

Oh. In case you all can't tell - I am super SUPER opposed to circumcision. Female Genital Mutilation, also...but that really should go without saying.

[blackboot]

Funny, that. And here I always thought that practicing safer sex and not sharing needles was the generally accepted way of decreasing the risk of HIV infection.

And as far as bacterial infections underneath the scrotum go, I would think that a far kinder way to combat that would be EDUCATING the caregivers of male children (and adults, in cases where they need assistance with that sort of thing) on proper cleaning and drying procedures. That strikes me as a whole lot more responsible than just lopping it off.

Oh. In case you all can't tell - I am super SUPER opposed to circumcision. Female Genital Mutilation, also...but that really should go without saying.

I agree with you in all that you have written. I have very personal reasons for leaving genitalia in a natural state with the exception of a (very) valid medical condition. Even then, it can be a slipery slope having someone from the "medical profession" making decisions about anyone's bits. To *me* that also includes a parent(s).

*My* bottom line---"If it's not your body, It's not your choice."
*Female Genital Mutilation. NO.
*Ambiguous Genital Mutilation. NO.
*Male Genital Mutilation. NO.

[Heart]

Regarding genital mutilation as it relates to circumcision of boys and girls:

Why is it when something that is detrimental to women and girls is raised, there is always this, "yeah, but it happens to boys/men too!" kind of response? While the intentions may be fair-minded, the upshot is to minimize what happens to women and girls and refocus on injustices to men and boys. Unconscious as it may be, I think its a kind of denial of the horrific realities the patriarchy visits on women and girls.

I am Jewish and my son was circumcised almost 18 years ago. I'm not religious, it was more of a gut thing. Today, I most likely wouldn't do it. But to say that he was "mutilated" is way over-stating. My son is a handsome, active, powerful young man in the prime of his life. A woman his age who has been circumcised would most likely have lost a child during childbirth and/or have a devastating condition called fistula that caused her to leak body waste and be shunned by her community, and/or be dead from a serious infection or blood loss.

See this link for more info on fistula, and how to help: http://www.fistulafoundation.org/

[Unndunn]

Funny, that. And here I always thought that practicing safer sex and not sharing needles was the generally accepted way of decreasing the risk of HIV infection.

And as far as bacterial infections underneath the scrotum go, I would think that a far kinder way to combat that would be EDUCATING the caregivers of male children (and adults, in cases where they need assistance with that sort of thing) on proper cleaning and drying procedures. That strikes me as a whole lot more responsible than just lopping it off.

Oh. In case you all can't tell - I am super SUPER opposed to circumcision. Female Genital Mutilation, also...but that really should go without saying.

Yeah, I'm picking up on your opposition.

First of all, we're not talking about the scrotum at all. It's the foreskin. Next, I'm not an advocate for or against circumcision in males. I simply know that there are medical reasons that it helps reduce infections in males, which therefore helps reduce infections in the women (or men) that they have sex with. That was my point-- that there is no medical benefit to women who are circumcized, but there is for men who are circumcized.

[Toughy]

my posts from a different thread:

Human beings of any culture have every right and should vehemently stop the practice of mutilating girl's genitalia. Actually we have an OBLIGATION to stop this.

We also have an OBLIGATION to stop the sexual exploitation of children.....especially girls. The media in Western culture bears the greatest responsibility and obligation to do this.

and

I focus on girls and women for a reason. Yes, I am against snipping off part of a boy/man penis.......for any reason. I don't think that practice of Judaism (and taken up others), rises to the horrific consequences of mutilating a girl's clitoris and entrance to the vagina.

It is a red herring to bring up snipping off the foreskin and leaving the penis a functional pleasurable sexual organ. It does not relate in any way, shape or form, nor has any connection with rendering a girl/women unable to experience sexual pleasure.

edited to add: and that mutilation continues her role as the vessel for the next generation, while ending her ability to have any pleasure from the act of procreation.

[blush]

No, Heart. My intention is not to a nefarious plot to undermine what happens to boys vs. what happens to girls. BOTH happen to very young children who have no say in the matter.

As a society, we find male circumcision socially acceptable, even healthier, yet there is very little evidence that this is true. The article about HIV infection suggested circumcision. Are the anaerobic bacteria present not destroyed to antibacterial soap? It seems less invasive to wash the foreskin than to cut it off.

I'm not interested in created a hierarchy debating which is a worse condition. Obviously, female circumcision is worse.

[Liam]

To equate circumcision for males with genital mutilation for females, indicates a lack of knowledge, and I hope that people take this opportunity to educate themselves. Removal of the foreskin leaves an organ that is able to feel pleasure, and usually circumcision takes place when the male is an infant, and he has no memory, of this procedure. On the other hand, removal of a female's clitoris quite often takes place when she is an older child, she retains the memory of the procedure, and is robbed of her primary source of pleasurable sexual stimulation, not to mention the health issues which arise from this procedure. The repeated suturing of the vagina, and then the consequent breaking of those sutures is far more brutal than the quick cutting of the penis's foreskin, which happens only once. To equate the two, is to say a scrape on the elbow is the same as having one's arm amputated.

[Heart]

No, Heart. My intention is not to a nefarious plot to undermine what happens to boys vs. what happens to girls. BOTH happen to very young children who have no say in the matter.

As a society, we find male circumcision socially acceptable, even healthier, yet there is very little evidence that this is true. The article about HIV infection suggested circumcision. Are the anaerobic bacteria present not destroyed to antibacterial soap? It seems less invasive to wash the foreskin than to cut it off.

I'm not interested in created a hierarchy debating which is a worse condition. Obviously, female circumcision is worse.

Yes, obviously. There IS a hierarchy. One I am interested in as it relates to the very different purposes and outcomes of female vs male circumcision. Thus my objection to calling male circumcision "mutilation."

[blush]

I focus on girls and women for a reason. Yes, I am against snipping off part of a boy/man penis.......for any reason. I don't think that practice of Judaism (and taken up others), rises to the horrific consequences of mutilating a girl's clitoris and entrance to the vagina.

It is a red herring to bring up snipping off the foreskin and leaving the penis a functional pleasurable sexual organ. It does not relate in any way, shape or form, nor has any connection with rendering a girl/women unable to experience sexual pleasure.

edited to add: and that mutilation continues her role as the vessel for the next generation, while ending her ability to have any pleasure from the act of procreation.

Thanks, Toughy.
I agree that one is much more damaging on many more levels.

My concern lies with altering(mutilating) an infant's or child's genitalia for seemingly social/religious reasons when they are too young to have agency in the matter.

[blush]

Yes, obviously. There IS a hierarchy. One I am interested in as it relates to the very different purposes and outcomes of female vs male circumcision. Thus my objection to calling male circumcision "mutilation."

Heart, we agree on the hierarchy. One is worse.

How is cutting off the foreskin NOT mutilation? It alters the penis permanently. It does not leave it in the natural state. The female version is much more globally damaging to females. I'm not arguing with you that that is true. Are we defining mutilation differently?

[Soon]

Regarding genital mutilation as it relates to circumcision of boys and girls:

Why is it when something that is detrimental to women and girls is raised, there is always this, "yeah, but it happens to boys/men too!" kind of response? While the intentions may be fair-minded, the upshot is to minimize what happens to women and girls and refocus on injustices to men and boys. Unconscious as it may be, I think its a kind of denial of the horrific realities the patriarchy visits on women and girls.



Yes to this.

I was teaching a poem by Atwood in which she outlined various global injustices perpetuated against women; one of the stanzas dealt with Female Genital Mutilation.

The very first response was from a young man shouting out, "Yeah, well, we get circumcised...what about THAT!?" which was met with head nods all around. The women were silent. I then explained what would happen to the penis if they experienced the same degree of mutilation that the girls undergo during FGM.


Here is my earlier post:

Female Genital Mutilation and Male Circumsion is not analogous--both in intent, cultural justifications, the physical procedure or the consequences. I am not proposing that male circumcision is without its issues or is immune from criticism. I just don't believe that the two procedures can be fairly compared.


FGM involves the cutting off of entire portions of the female anatomy. For boys, the removal of the foreskin is more about removing an “extra” piece of skin than removing a center of pleasure. Removing the clitoris, which occurs in many FGM rituals, is done to help ensure that girls do not derive any pleasure from their sexuality, thus encouraging them to remain pure. The male equivalent of FGM would be the removal of the tip of the penis up to and including the removal of the penis and scrotum.

I am not cool with the description of the *extra piece of skin" portion of the description; however, a clitoridectomy (and other parts that can be cut during FGM--the labia--as well as sewn up--vagina) just does not equate to the act of removing the foreskin of males.



Beyond the dramatic differences in the actual physical procedures between the two, the intent, justifications and ramifications are completely distinct from one another.


Cutting off a clitoris (and labia and sewing up her vagina in many cases) is meant to completely eradicate ANY sexual pleasure--it is used as method of control. There are NO health benefits and many women have lifelong medical conditions afterwards--not to mention an inability to enjoy sex.

Some may say that the roots of circumcision was to not have the boys masturbate as much. This is not the case now. There have been recent studies (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/26/healthmag.circumcision.hpv.herpes/index.html) that show how circumcision does reduce the rate of penile cancer, HIV, herpes and HPV (in turn, which helps protect women who are infected with HPV by men).

If I had a son, I would consider circumcision due to these studies. I don't think that circumcision is a mutilation, and I have a hard time with both these subjects being cast under the same umbrella.

The only common thread that I can see between Female Genital Mutilation and Circumcision performed on baby boys is that they both are performed without consent.

*****************************

Blush,

If you are not setting up a hierarchy or even equating the two, then why would you question the level of horror that people have in regards to FGM over circumcision? Your question is phrased with the insinuation that there should be an equal amount of horror expressed towards circumcision as to FGM. It makes perfect sense to me that people would naturally be more horrified at FGM than circumcision.

[Nat]

My intention in starting this thread was to discuss any/all genital mutilation whether common and accepted or not, whether it happens to boys or girls or intersex kids. (So it's not a red herring to discuss male circumcision in this thread).

I have known men who were very glad they were uncircumcised and I have known men who felt violated that they had been circumcised. I have also known circumcised guys that were fine with the fact they were circumcised and guys who wished they were circumcised. But the ones who are uncircumcised CAN go and get circumcised a lot easier than those who were circumcised, where as those who are circumcised aren't able to grow their foreskins back. What does it do to a guy's psyche that his parents were willing to chop off bit of his penis? Why aren't men who are upset about this taken seriously? - especially in places where female genital alteration is rare? Is it like a "suck it up and be a man" thing?

I don't think male circumcision is on par with female circumcision but I do feel that altering the genitals of babies is a violation. That's my own feeling and it's strongly held.

I am very against altering female genitalia and I'm glad my bits weren't screwed with. I think it's a horrible travesty and I want it stopped. I also think surgeries meant to re-create the hymen are pretty damn fucked up.

I'm very against altering intersex children's genitalia because I think doing so can have horrible circumstances for that kid. As blackboot said, only in extreme medical situations would I advocate surgical alteration of a child's genitalia and even then my focus would be on retaining whatever functionality possible for that kid. It would never be to shove them into the box labeled male or the box labeled female.

[blush]

To equate circumcision for males with genital mutilation for females, indicates a lack of knowledge, and I hope that people take this opportunity to educate themselves. Removal of the foreskin leaves an organ that is able to feel pleasure, and usually circumcision takes place when the male is an infant, and he has no memory, of this procedure. On the other hand, removal of a female's clitoris quite often takes place when she is an older child, she retains the memory of the procedure, and is robbed of her primary source of pleasurable sexual stimulation, not to mention the health issues which arise from this procedure. The repeated suturing of the vagina, and then the consequent breaking of those sutures is far more brutal than the quick cutting of the penis's foreskin, which happens only once. To equate the two, is to say a scrape on the elbow is the same as having one's arm amputated.

No one is equating the two.

[blush]

My intention in starting this thread was to discuss any/all genital mutilation whether common and accepted here in the US or not, whether it happens to boys or girls or intersex kids. (So it's not a red herring to discuss male circumcision in this thread).

I have known men who were very glad they were uncircumcised and I have known men who felt violated that they had been circumcised. I have also known circumcised guys that were fine with the fact they were circumcised and guys who wished they were circumcised.

I don't think male circumcision is on par with female circumcision but I do feel that altering the genitals of babies is a violation. That's my own feeling and it's strongly held.

I agree, Nat. And I would rather that this thread turned into a resource for information about genital mutilation instead of a debate about which is worse.

[blush]

Blush,

If you are not setting up a hierarchy or even equating the two, then why would you question the level of horror that people have in regards to FGM over circumcision? Your question is phrased with the insinuation that there should be an equal amount of horror expressed towards circumcision as to FGM. It makes perfect sense to me that people would naturally be more horrified at FGM than circumcision.

You're right. Perhaps my phrasing was too strong. My intention was to open the conversation up, not shut it down. I also want to learn more about both issues.

[Semantics]

my posts from a different thread:

Human beings of any culture have every right and should vehemently stop the practice of mutilating girl's genitalia. Actually we have an OBLIGATION to stop this.

We also have an OBLIGATION to stop the sexual exploitation of children.....especially girls. The media in Western culture bears the greatest responsibility and obligation to do this.

and

I focus on girls and women for a reason. Yes, I am against snipping off part of a boy/man penis.......for any reason. I don't think that practice of Judaism (and taken up others), rises to the horrific consequences of mutilating a girl's clitoris and entrance to the vagina.

It is a red herring to bring up snipping off the foreskin and leaving the penis a functional pleasurable sexual organ. It does not relate in any way, shape or form, nor has any connection with rendering a girl/women unable to experience sexual pleasure.

edited to add: and that mutilation continues her role as the vessel for the next generation, while ending her ability to have any pleasure from the act of procreation.

I agree.

I hate it when people bring up principles like cultural relativism to explain why we shouldn't interfere with these practices.

All humans have basic, inalienable rights that should be protected. People shouldn’t be tortured and have their health put at risk, their genitals mutilated.

[Mister Bent]

Funny, that. And here I always thought that practicing safer sex and not sharing needles was the generally accepted way of decreasing the risk of HIV infection.

And as far as bacterial infections underneath the scrotum (foreskin) go, I would think that a far kinder way to combat that would be EDUCATING the caregivers of male children (and adults, in cases where they need assistance with that sort of thing) on proper cleaning and drying procedures. That strikes me as a whole lot more responsible than just lopping it off.


I agree that most of the medical problems associated with intact foreskins could be eradicated through better education. Neither parents nor "health" educators in our schools have been properly educated in instructing uncircumcised boys. Cutting off the foreskin simply allows better access to the penis in order to keep it clean, which I think we all know is no guarantee it will, in fact, be kept clean. Removal of the foreskin does decrease sexual pleasure, and there have been studies into the affects of inflicting severe pain on infants, so there are emotional/psychological ramifications worthy of inquiry, as well.

Regarding genital mutilation as it relates to circumcision of boys and girls:

Why is it when something that is detrimental to women and girls is raised, there is always this, "yeah, but it happens to boys/men too!" kind of response? While the intentions may be fair-minded, the upshot is to minimize what happens to women and girls and refocus on injustices to men and boys. Unconscious as it may be, I think its a kind of denial of the horrific realities the patriarchy visits on women and girls.


From the other thread, and here, I personally didn't get the impression that the comment was made from a "yeah, but it happens to boys/men, too" perspective, but rather that there are forms of genital mutilation that take place right here in our own backyard, without having to take the issue globally (which is not to say that we shouldn't).

Similarly, I don't understand why we can't have conversations about what happens to our male children without it becoming a conversation about the patriarchy and male favoritism. Why can't both conversations occur concurrently?

Nor do I think anyone, anywhere here, has equated male circumcision with the horrific practice of female circumcision and to continue to try to berate those who would like to discuss male circumcision on those grounds feels like a kind of backlash effort at shutting down that conversation. I'd like to read/hear what members here think regarding both subjects, particularly as the parent of male child.

There is a hierarchy of horrors, and FGM far outweighs - from both physical and cultural perspectives - male foreskin removal. But circumcision is mutilation, and it is relevant to talk about it here.

[Toughy]

I would agree that 'altering' is an appropriate term for male circumcision. I do not see it as mutilation.

I find it wholly lacking enough emphasis when talking about female genitalia and intersexed genitalia. Mutilation is a much more accurate term in my mind.

As far as health benefits for males (and those they have sex with).........education about personal hygiene is a much better method. Schools cannot teach this properly because of restrictions placed on them by idiots from the fundamentalist and other religious communities. Remember abstinence only and don't touch your pee-pee cuz you will get warts and other bad things will happen...........

[betenoire]

First of all, we're not talking about the scrotum at all.

When I posted I had just gotten home from a 14 hour long graveyard shift, so you will have to forgive my mistype. I am not stupid, I know we were talking about foreskins. In fact, ---I--- was talking about foreskins but mistyped.

How about in the future you read and understand the entire message instead of using one mistyped word as your basis for dismissal? It's pretty clear that I was talking about foreskins - otherwise I would not have said anything about circumcisions.

Are the anaerobic bacteria present not destroyed to antibacterial soap? It seems less invasive to wash the foreskin than to cut it off.

Boy oh boy, it's a good thing you weren't tired and accidentally typed some other bodypart instead of foreskin!

~~~

The argument that most male children who get circumcised do so when they are really really young and won't remember it as adults is laughable. By that logic we should be able to do all sorts of horrible things to babies - hey, they won't remember it right? Game on!

[Martina]

Re male circumcision, i am in general against it, but many studies have shown that it drops the chance of getting HIV as much as half. It's one of the reasons that southern Africa has a higher infection rate than East and West Africa, which are more Muslim.

Re female circumcision, i see no excuse for it. No cultural excuse is acceptable. It is a human rights violation and ought to be pursued by international agencies as such.

i appreciate Nat's making the thread, in part not to derail another. And i totally agree with increasing awareness and getting support for agencies that help women, like the fistula clinics that Heart linked to.

But i am bothered by the fact that we seem to be aware of women from developing countries only through issues of gender violence. These issues are real. They are not rare. But they are not the whole lives of women from these nations.

One can live in a patriarchal culture and negotiate power for oneself. That has led to some women demanding power for their gender. i appreciate the work of people like Nicholas Kristof. i love his story. i have always followed him in the Times. It's huge what they are doing, and more needs to be done.

But we also need to hear the voices of women whose first concerns are not gender violence. Most women in developing countries live lives where they have a certain amount of self-determination. They have families who support them. They have jobs. They have children about whose education they make choices. Are they living in more sexist cultures? Yes. Do they perhaps have some pleasures and freedoms that we do not? Yes.

i am thinking of the women i saw depicted in the PBS Africa series this year that my students watched much of. There was a Nairobi single mom who owned her own hair salon. A woman living in remote Tanzania among another tribe because she fell in love. She visited her mom again in the city and made the decision for herself whether to keep living in rural poverty or return to the city and take advantage of her education. There was a family where the wife ran the farm/ranch back home while the husband lived near the lake and ran a fishing concern. They came together and coordinated their business concerns and made business decisions together. We saw a woman become the first female supervisor in a mine.


Global feminism is of course concerned with gender violence, but also with the struggle against corporations and governments who want to exploit third world laborers and despoil their environments. China's investment in Africa, in some of the poorest and most ecologically fragile places in the world, is a concern to feminists and other activists in the region.

Anyway, we ought to take the time to look into how women empower themselves as well as how they are disempowered. i think Kristof does that. i think reporting on international development efforts that focus on women does that. But somehow we still come away with this image of women of the developing world as victims.

We have this definition of personal autonomy that is western. We are totally bought into it. And we seem to believe that anybody who does not have the miriad of choices we do is oppressed. Well maybe. But some of them have a few things we do not have. Like the support of an extended family and a sense of community that stretches back generations. That is certainly less common everywhere these days. And it certainly is not the case in postcolonial subSaharan Africa where the most disruptive thing in most people's lives has been the fact that men have to be away from home for months at a time to work. Anyway, the concerns of women from developing nations are not always our concerns. Nor are they the concerns we might think they should have.

[SuperFemme]

I think as mothers we are pretty much forced/shamed into complying with doing the circumcision on our male babies in the hospital. It's not like the OB/GYN discusses it with you during pregnancy.

It's not like they even discuss it with you in the hospital. They wait until you are all worn out from giving birth and then they come in the room and shove a consent form in front of you and tell you to sign it. You are never encouraged not to circumcise or told that it is not medically necessary. Think about that. It's a cosmetic procedure being done on a little life that is hours old. Elective. One out of every 500 circumcisions results in a serious complication. About 4 out of 100 are either considered unsatisfactory or result in some sort of complication.

“Some children end up with adhesions and/or skin bridges which can impede hygiene and actually precipitate infections.” The most common complication is the removal of either too much or too little skin. This may not become apparent until years later. Many circumcised adults complain that too much skin was removed. This can result in painful erections and bowing or curvature of the penis. Other common results not always noticed until later include extensive scarring, skin tags, and bleeding of the circumcision scar.

Yet there is little to no consultation beforehand. So while I understand that male circumcision is nowhere near the same a FGM it is a serious issue and one that keeps getting swept under the rug.

[blackboot]

Well...I would agree that "altering" is certainly a much more palatable word than mutilation. I feel the non-consensual aspects of the decision of removing/changing parts of anyone's genitalia as an infant is my issue with this conversation. It seems to me that at the age of reason or adulthood, a human being should be entitled to make that choice. Not have it made for them.

[Martina]

i know some very Berkeley Muslims originally from Indonesia who waited till their son was able to make the decision. He decided he wanted to have it done. At 17, he and his family flew back to Indonesia for the ceremony. The procedure itself was done in a hospital.

[betenoire]

i know some very Berkeley Muslims originally from Indonesia who waited till their son was able to make the decision. He decided he wanted to have it done. At 17, he and his family flew back to Indonesia for the ceremony. The procedure itself was done in a hospital.

And I think that's great. I would like to see all boys be given the right to choose for themselves regarding circumcision.

I mean, it's really NOT "just an extra flap of skin". It's not extra anything! If it was extra then it would be abnormal for boys to be born with a foreskin. It's not a tumor. It's not a skintag. It's not a fucking 6th toe. It's a natural occurring bodypart, and I think that the owner of said bodypart should get to decide for themself what to do with it.

I don't think that the human body is just born with random parts that are unseemly and without purpose. If the foreskin had no use it would have evolved out by now. The foreskin protects the penis. Unprotected penises chafe. Unprotected penises get desensitized to some degree. If I had a penis I would not want it to be unprotected.

[blush]

From the other thread, and here, I personally didn't get the impression that the comment was made from a "yeah, but it happens to boys/men, too" perspective, but rather that there are forms of genital mutilation that take place right here in our own backyard, without having to take the issue globally (which is not to say that we shouldn't).

Similarly, I don't understand why we can't have conversations about what happens to our male children without it becoming a conversation about the patriarchy and male favoritism. Why can't both conversations occur concurrently?

Nor do I think anyone, anywhere here, has equated male circumcision with the horrific practice of female circumcision and to continue to try to berate those who would like to discuss male circumcision on those grounds feels like a kind of backlash effort at shutting down that conversation. I'd like to read/hear what members here think regarding both subjects, particularly as the parent of male child.

There is a hierarchy of horrors, and FGM far outweighs - from both physical and cultural perspectives - male foreskin removal. But circumcision is mutilation, and it is relevant to talk about it here.
[/FONT]

Yep. Exactly. Thank you. This is the point I was trying to get across.

[Toughy]

One of the reasons I have been given for snipping off the foreskin:

I let the doctors do it because they told me....when I (the father) am naked around my son, his penis should look like mine. If his is different he will think something is wrong with his penis............

I am truly serious about this.

[SuperFemme]

One of the reasons I have been given for snipping off the foreskin:

I let the doctors do it because they told me....when I (the father) am naked around my son, his penis should look like mine. If his is different he will think something is wrong with his penis............

I am truly serious about this.


:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|

[Heart]

No one is equating the two.

Oh, but they are.

Blush - you directed this question to me:
"How is cutting off the foreskin NOT mutilation? It alters the penis permanently. It does not leave it in the natural state. The female version is much more globally damaging to females. I'm not arguing with you that that is true. Are we defining mutilation differently?"

I mentioned in a previous post that my own son is circumcised. So, according to your definition I have mutilated my son. Yes, we most definitely have different definitions of the word "mutilate."

Mr. Bent said this:
"There is a hierarchy of horrors, and FGM far outweighs - from both physical and cultural perspectives - male foreskin removal. But circumcision is mutilation, and it is relevant to talk about it here."

I think referring to male circumcision as mutilation does in fact minimize the horror of female circumcision. That is why I am comparing the two and hammering at this point. They are not the same thing, but in referring to both of them as mutilation, they are being equated.

Circumcision of both males and females is altering, but only that of females is mutilation.

Heart

[Heart]

I think as mothers we are pretty much forced/shamed into complying with doing the circumcision on our male babies in the hospital. It's not like the OB/GYN discusses it with you during pregnancy.


I agree. This was basically my experience. It was never raised or discussed in terms of health pros or cons by anyone prior to my giving birth. Once it was discussed I was in the immediate aftermath of labor (I did not know ahead of time that I was having a boy). I signed the papers. It seemed like the "normal" thing to do. I remember being told it was "healthier," I remember my mother saying, "all Jewish boys are circumcised," and my husband, who was not Jewish, was also circumcised and he wanted our son to be as well. (Yes, he did want the baby to "look like him," I distinctly remember that part of the conversation").

What bothers me the most when I think back on it was that I was not present when it was done. Because I was not religious, I did not have a Bris at home. It was done in the hospital while I was still in recovery. I hate that I wasn't there with my baby and that he went through that alone.

Heart

[SuperFemme]

I agree. This was basically my experience. It was never raised or discussed in terms of health pros or cons by anyone prior to my giving birth. Once it was discussed I was in the immediate aftermath of labor (I did not know ahead of time that I was having a boy). I signed the papers. It seemed like the "normal" thing to do. I remember being told it was "healthier," I remember my mother saying, "all Jewish boys are circumcised," and my husband, who was not Jewish, was also circumcised and he wanted our son to be as well. (Yes, he did want the baby to "look like him," I distinctly remember that part of the conversation").

What bothers me the most when I think back on it was that I was not present when it was done. Because I was not religious, I did not have a Bris at home. It was done in the hospital while I was still in recovery. I hate that I wasn't there with my baby and that he went through that alone.

Heart


YES!

There is cultural significance in my community regarding the procedure and I too let my son be carted off to another room to have it done in a cold and clinical setting.

I feel like I let him down in more than one way. I also feel that having a mother make that kind of decision after labor and delivery is irresponsible and disrespectful to the mother. IMO it takes away a degree of choice.

[Jett]

I think the distinction as far as one being "mutilation" and the other not has a lot to do with the intent and results. Mutilation is defined as something that damages form or function of the human body to the detriment of the person experiencing it.

Although circumcision sometimes can result in botched surgery, it's done often with beneficial results in mind and usually ends up that way. Whereas FGM is not a "therapeutic" procedure, more aptly disfiguring and can result in permanent loss of ability to derive any sexual pleasure for life.

Both are questionable and worthy of discussion, but just in the context of "mutilation" FGM certainly strikes me at a core level as a more barbaric harmful practice in the long term.

Metro

[blush]

Oh, but they are.

Blush - you directed this question to me:
"How is cutting off the foreskin NOT mutilation? It alters the penis permanently. It does not leave it in the natural state. The female version is much more globally damaging to females. I'm not arguing with you that that is true. Are we defining mutilation differently?"

I mentioned in a previous post that my own son is circumcised. So, according to your definition I have mutilated my son. Yes, we most definitely have different definitions of the word "mutilate."

Mr. Bent said this:
"There is a hierarchy of horrors, and FGM far outweighs - from both physical and cultural perspectives - male foreskin removal. But circumcision is mutilation, and it is relevant to talk about it here."

I think referring to male circumcision as mutilation does in fact minimize the horror of female circumcision. That is why I am comparing the two and hammering at this point. They are not the same thing, but in referring to both of them as mutilation, they are being equated.

Circumcision of both males and females is altering, but only that of females is mutilation.

Heart

Heart, I'm not going to debate your decision to circumcise your son. It is too personal, and I do respect you and your viewpoints. I'm a mother too. We have differing viewpoints on this, can we agree to disagree?

[Nat]

qDJyZIPvExY

[blush]

http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/female-genital-cutting.cfm

This is a FAQ page I found helpful.

[Unndunn]

First of all, we're not talking about the scrotum at all. It's the foreskin. Next, I'm not an advocate for or against circumcision in males. I simply know that there are medical reasons that it helps reduce infections in males, which therefore helps reduce infections in the women (or men) that they have sex with. That was my point-- that there is no medical benefit to women who are circumcized, but there is for men who are circumcized.

When I posted I had just gotten home from a 14 hour long graveyard shift, so you will have to forgive my mistype. I am not stupid, I know we were talking about foreskins. In fact, ---I--- was talking about foreskins but mistyped.

How about in the future you read and understand the entire message instead of using one mistyped word as your basis for dismissal? It's pretty clear that I was talking about foreskins - otherwise I would not have said anything about circumcisions.



I wasn't basing my post on your accidental word substitution; in fact the only thing I would like to have dismissed from your post was the attitude. I'm not allowed to call you on referencing the wrong body part but it's okay for you to say I didn't read or understand your entire message? Howabout in the future we all give each other a break?

[DapperButch]

Ok, so yesterday I was talking to someone about this thread who has a son. I asked her about circumcision (her son is circumcised) and why did she do it? So, she gave me various reasons, including working with men who were HIV+ and the stats around that, cleanliness, etc. I brought up the desensitizing of the penis and why not just teach children how to pull back the skin and clean the area (I said the same things to her the other day that I have now read others saying).

And she said to me, "Does anyone on that board have a son who was not circumcised? Can anyone speak to the difficulty in getting your 8 year old son to pull back the skin of a flacid penis and clean between the folds? Because it is not like you can do that for them at 8 years old."

She then went on to talk about hearing from more than one parent their difficulty with getting their sons to keep the area clean and spoke about one mother's experience with her son always getting infections under the foreskin and the pain that he would be in when she would have to take a q-tip to clean under the skin after it was infected.

So, now I am curious about this....does anyone here have a child who was not circumcised?

If so, what has the experience been like for you/your son?


(for the sake of self disclosure: I have no children and have not raised any children).

[Medusa]

Im going to warn anyone who might read this article that its *extremely* disturbing. I was sickened.

Evidence of Female Genital Mutilation and sexual conpromise right here in the USA-->http://jezebel.com/5565895/cornell-surgeon-used-vibrator-to-stimulate-6+year+olds

[Unndunn]

Im going to warn anyone who might read this article that its *extremely* disturbing. I was sickened.

Evidence of Female Genital Mutilation and sexual conpromise right here in the USA-->http://jezebel.com/5565895/cornell-surgeon-used-vibrator-to-stimulate-6+year+olds

That is so disturbing. There is no reason for this surgery. I honestly can't believe it's being done, especially in the US. I feel sick just thinking about those poor girls and how this is affecting them now as well as in the future.

[Enigma]

Im going to warn anyone who might read this article that its *extremely* disturbing. I was sickened.

Evidence of Female Genital Mutilation and sexual conpromise right here in the USA-->http://jezebel.com/5565895/cornell-surgeon-used-vibrator-to-stimulate-6+year+olds


That is so disturbing. There is no reason for this surgery. I honestly can't believe it's being done, especially in the US. I feel sick just thinking about those poor girls and how this is affecting them now as well as in the future.


This loathesome surgical practice happens to little girls and boys ....and adults....because there is a lack of education, acceptance and respect for gender diversity and sexual expression.

My prayers go out to all the people, both here in the US and globally, who routinely have their bodies and self expression policed and invaded by others. It happens every day, in covert and blatant ways. It matters not what country or religion; conformity is demanded.

Hida Viloria is a spokesperson for the rights of children and adults to be free from the tyranny of medical intervention and social gender policing.



<object width="980" height="765"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xv1yk2Va9qc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xv1yk2Va9qc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="980" height="765"></embed></object>

Here are parents who have had to fight the medical establishment to protect their little boy. My heart goes out to them and their son, Patrick.



<object width="980" height="765"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cr96b9v1YB8&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cr96b9v1YB8&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="980" height="765"></embed></object>

[foxyshaman]

So, now I am curious about this....does anyone here have a child who was not circumcised?

If so, what has the experience been like for you/your son?


(for the sake of self disclosure: I have no children and have not raised any children).

Dapper,

I do have a son who is uncircumcised who is now 20. I never had any problems with him keeping his penis clean. He never had an infection, never had any issues. He was tender when he first started to masturbate cause who knows anything about moderation and forskin care at a young age.

There was never any question in my mind to not have my son circumcised. The desensitivity issue was enough to convince me. If I even needed a final nail in the coffin of "NO" it was seeing the little board that the boy is strapped into to get circucised. I had also had sex with two males who had poor circumcisions done, one lost the tip of his penis and the other had to have it redone at 16.

My son has never complained to me that he was not done. There were never any issues in the change rooms (that I am aware of).

Anyway... just thought I would pipe in with my pennies...

[Enchantress]

A relevant albeit disturbing read. Dear God, why?

So Sad (http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/147254/after_cutting_little_girls'_clitorises,_ivy_league _doctor_tests_handiwork_with_a_vibrator/)

[Enchantress]

So sorry, I didn't see your earlier post, Medusa! Forgive me!

[Soon]

"It's Tradition, I Had No Choice" Nellie's Story (http://open.salon.com/blog/poppi_iceland/2010/07/20/its_tradition_i_had_no_choice_nellies_story)

[Stearns]

Legislation recently introduced in the U.S. Congress aims to strengthen current asylum laws for immigrant women who are trying to flee their country to escape gender-based violence.

Listen to the story of Yaye, a 36-year-old woman from a West African country who was subjected to FGM as a baby. She moved to the U.S. for a forced marriage and bore 3 daughters. Family members started pressuring her to bring her daughters back to the homeland so the "procedure" could be performed on them. The Tahirih Center was able to win her asylum.



sV_fTnzUte8