Do you all agree with the practice of ritual scarring/marking of infants? It causes no memorable trauma and doesn’t interfere with any bodily functions. It’s only effect is a permanent cosmetic change.
No one circumcises their kids for the supposed minor health benefits, most of which would actually end up being detrimental.
Are all female circumcisions done on older girls?
There’s a lessening of sexual function. This is even one of the promoted benefits in the past. Do all female circumcisions result in a complete loss of sexual function?
WTF are you talking about? The prevalent forms of ‘female genital mutilation’ practiced in some areas involve a far milder degree of modification to the genitals than circumcision of male infants does.
Cutting the clitoris off, even partially, is NOT a “milder degree”, in any way, shape or form to male circumcision. Men can still function sexually. I’d say the vast majority of women have a difficult time reaching orgasm without some form of clitoral stimulation.
And the reasons FOR it, are far, far more sinister. And you bloody well know it.
Uh, you’re the one who brought up clitoridectomy, not me. If you’re trying to argue about clitoridectomy I have no freaking idea why you responded to my post.
What, types of FGM do you know of that are milder than male circumcision. Because the “mildest form” of FGM does INDEED involve at least partial removal of the clitoral hood. If you know of something different, let’s hear it.
And pray tell me, if there is any other purpose than to prevent a woman from enjoying sex, (in the belief that it will “keep her pure”.)
One might describe the insertion of a scalpel into the foreskin in order to remove it as ‘sexual penetration’. Others might object, and maybe they’d be happier defining it as sexual assault:
where the desired effects of circumcision amount to ‘the torture of the victim in a sexual manner’ even if the immediate perpetrators are not aware of that.
FWIW I termed it ‘ritual genital mutilation’ and intended the other verbiage as metaphor. IANAL and may not get the language right.
I realize you were not talking to me, but I notice you framed that with ‘given’. What amounts to a ‘burden on the state’?
Yah, I know. A lot of people don’t have the stomach for it. Go ahead an PM me her number and I’ll take care of it.
That probably comes across as inappropriate, but if it is good enough for Jesus’ mother it is good enough for yours. The commentators would like to dodge the issue and you may persuade me if I’m wrong, but it sure looks to me like Jesus told His mother to fuck off, albeit in gentler terms. So in that way at least this isn’t a prohibited thing to do.
Perhaps more importantly, if we are ever to see the end of butchery and barbarism it will only be because there are consequences attached to them. It doesn’t really matter how good an impersonation of the Queen of England the perpetrator performs after the fact. If they are responsible for circumcising someone in this day and age without a demonstrable medical reason then they ought to be ready to receive a particular piece of my mind, the one that resembles a squid with 40,000 legs, all with the feet cut off for no reason whatsoever, stirring up needless anger. Telling your mom to fuck off is the right thing to do, or, forcing this social change is important enough that it is worth it to tell your mother to fuck off.
But I was very careful to point out that I might be accused of demagoguery if I compared my circumcision to FGM! I termed it Ritual genital mutilation and was very careful in defining it. I really tried to address this concern in advance.
Even if what you just said hadn’t been a stupidly and pathetically false statement, if you had any idea how genitalia worked, you’d be able to figure out that “partial removal of the clitoral hood” is, anatomically, at most equivalent to the normal circumcision procedure performed on the penis.
But share more opinions, please. :rolleyes:
I don’t even care, because you all should keep your knives away from your babies, but “female genital mutilation” as it’s practiced in many places involves a procedure way less significant than the total removal of the clitoral hood, which is obviously what we’re comparing with. Even if Wikipedia doesn’t make that explicit to people who don’t bother actually reading its citations. :rolleyes:
And I am one of those people (although I am straight). I got cut in September last year, at the age of thirty seven, due to a medical issue. I’d had plenty of sex before (I had a nine and a half year relationship before the operation - the cut was unrelated) and I’ve had a lot of sex after (I’m five months into a new relationship, so I’m guessing a lot of people knows how *that *goes!).
The truth is, there is a difference. A lot of sensitivity is lost and it feels very different, to the point where I honestly think it is impossible to explain to someone who was cut from birth exactly what they are missing. The end of the penis goes from being the most sensitive part of the body to being almost a shell devoid of sensitivity. Saying that to someone cut from birth, the usual response is “but I can feel the end and it feels ace when it is touched” and that is true, but you feel it nowhere near as much as an uncut man, you simply don’t understand how different it is.
Having said that, I’d do it again. I needed it and my sex life has improved as a result of getting things cleared up (note: I have no interest, before anyone asks, into getting into why I needed the operation). I am simply posting to say that as someone that has felt both sides, there is a very large difference. Very large.
It seems to me that men who have been snipped later in life have less insight into the differences between the two states than they think as the healing/scarring would be different for a man snipped at infancy.
I disagree, unless nerve endings mysteriously regrow on infants’ penises unlike, well, scarring anywhere else. Even then, those nerve endings are in a completely different place.
The glans, as far as I am aware, ends up being exactly the same with the keratinisation working exactly the same. I’m open to being shown to be wrong though.
I’ve found plenty of articles that describe there to be no scarring/keratinisation of injuries in the fetus, now i’m trying to find an article where it describes when that (probably stem-cell mediated) healing process transforms into a normal adult one. There is, at least, room to believe that a infant circumcision will heal differently/better.