The Genital Mutilation Thread

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/ar...-hiv-infection

[Lady Pamela]

Originally Posted by Unndunn

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/ar...-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]

Originally Posted by Unndunn

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]

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 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/

[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.

[Soon]

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.

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 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.

[Mister Bent]

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.

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.

[Unndunn]

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 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.