06-13-2010, 10:20 AM
|
#24
|
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?: .
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: .
Posts: 2,905
Thanks: 4,151
Thanked 5,825 Times in 1,722 Posts
Rep Power: 21474854
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by betenoire
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.
__________________
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. - H. L. Mencken
|
|
|