21,000 girls at risk of female genital mutilation -- in Great Britain!

[pnwmom]

I wonder what the comparable numbers would be in the U.S.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2187263,00.html

More than 21,000 girls under 15 in England and Wales are estimated to be at serious risk of being forced into genital mutilation and a further 11,000 over-eights are highly likely already to have been subjected to the practice, according to research.

Parents and guardians in African immigrant communities are thought to be taking their children abroad for female gential mutilation (FGM), but so called "excisors" are also said to be operating in Britain.

Around 66,000 women and girls in England and Wales may have undergone the procedure, in which part or all of their genitalia is cut off and stitched up, without anaesthetic, the campaigning group Forward said yesterday.

Its study, funded by the Department of Health, also found the number of children born to women with FGM rose from an estimated 6,000 in 2001 to a likely figure of 9,000 in 2004.

SNIP


____________________________

If your issue is with male circumcision, please don't try to hijack this thread -- just start another.

:shrug:

[Hydra]

1. I have a problem with both types

keep the knives away from the kids!

[Deep13]

4. Gee, duh, do yah think?

Why the fuck is it even necessary to say that? Hey, keep sharks away from our kids! :mad: :cry:

[pnwmom]

5. I have a problem with people who think they're comparable

since the United Nations and the World Health organization now recommend male circumcisions for the prevention of AIDS.

But, as I said, why don't you start your own thread, and I'll be happy to give you information about the definitive, large scale, controlled, studies that led to the WHO's recommendation.

[Hydra]

10. How about we find a cure for aids instead?

I'm not hijacking your thread, but I find both insane and indefensible.

[Deep13]

20. That may be 50 years away. n/t

[Hydra]

23. There are already theoreticals

and I find it hard to believe that no cure exists, as I can't remember the last time someone in congress died of AIDS, despite their...well known behavior.

[Deep13]

27. So much for not hijacking the thread.

There is nothing preventing MEN (not babies) from voluntarily being circumcised to prevent the spread of AIDS. Of course if they are going to do that, they may as well just use a rubber.

[pnwmom]

41. What bothers me about this is that you are using this thread

to spread misinformation.

The WHO research showed that circumcisions reduced the rate of HIV by 60% EVEN in men who were using condoms. The UN and the WHO strongly recommend that all men at risk for HIV continue to use condoms AND also be circumcised.

[Deep13]

46. Well, that sounds like a compelling case.

It suggests that those using condoms are not being consistent. Or maybe the information I have always heard about the success of them against AIDS are based on US studies where most men are cropped.

[pnwmom]

53. Thanks for listening. Here's a link to the WHO announcement.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html

Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. The international consultation, which was held 6-8 March 2007 in Montreux, Switzerland, was attended by participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, researchers, human rights and women's health advocates, young people, funding agencies and implementing partners.

"The recommendations represent a significant step forward in HIV prevention," said Dr Kevin De Cock, Director, HIV/AIDS Department in WHO. "Countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV infection and low rates of male circumcision now have an additional intervention which can reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men. Scaling up male circumcision in such countries will result in immediate benefit to individuals. However, it will be a number of years before we can expect to see an impact on the epidemic from such investment."

There is now strong evidence from three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya; Rakai District, Uganda (funded by the US National Institutes of Health); and Orange Farm, South Africa (funded by the French National Agency for Research on AIDS) that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. This evidence supports the findings of numerous observational studies that have also suggested that the geographical correlation long described between lower HIV prevalence and high rates of male circumcision in some countries in Africa, and more recently elsewhere, is, at least in part, a causal association. Currently, 665 million men, or 30 % of men worldwide, are estimated to be circumcised.

Male circumcision should be part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package

Male circumcision should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package, which includes

the provision of HIV testing and counselling services;
treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
the promotion of safer sex practices; and
the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
Counselling of men and their sexual partners is necessary to prevent them from developing a false sense of security and engaging in high-risk behaviours that could undermine the partial protection provided by male circumcision. Furthermore, male circumcision service provision was seen as a major opportunity to address the frequently neglected sexual health needs of men.

"Being able to recommend an additional HIV prevention method is a significant step towards getting ahead of this epidemic," said Catherine Hankins, Associate Director, Department of Policy, Evidence and Partnerships at UNAIDS. "However, we must be clear: Male circumcision does not provide complete protection against HIV. Men and women who consider male circumcision as an HIV preventive method must continue to use other forms of protection such as male and female condoms, delaying sexual debut and reducing the number of sexual partners."

SNIP

[Colorado Progressive]

124. There is no case for circumcision vs aids. It is flat out asinine.

Not using a condom, yes, there is a case for that. Condoms do help prevent aids. But chopping off part of a dick? How stupid are people, anyways? Why not just chop the whole fucking thing off? That would surely fix the problem. Because its the body part, and not behavior, that is a problem.

:sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

132. And you know more than the international conference of HIV

researchers that accepted all three studies after peer review, and more than the WHO committee that analyzed the studies and made the recommendation in favor of circumcision.

Just so I'm clear, the results don't negate the use of condoms. But the results show that there is a 60% reduction in HIV transmission, even when condoms are used. So the recommendation is to use BOTH condoms and circumcisions in countries where there is a high rate of HIV.

[Touchdown]

74. WHO didn't do this research

It was done by two well known advocates for Circumcision looking for a link to HIV for over 30 years.

It also hasn't been falsified or tested in a lab. It was a clinical study, not a scientific one. There are differences between the two. You should know them before YOU spread mis-information.

This WHO reccomendation also has no effect on gay men contracting HIV, since that "success" is only about female to male transmission. The passive partner is always more at risk.

[pnwmom]

85. Not true at all. WHO sponsored this research, which was done

by top HIV researchers from around the world. There were actually three major studies involving different groups of researchers, the results of which were presented and reviewed at the major worldwide AIDS conference last year and this year.

To say that it was a "clinical study," not scientific, tells me you are ignorant about the conduct of medical research.

And your last comment floors me.

[Touchdown]

101. Wanna be floored some more? Syphillis study

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22562839-29277,00.html

"Circumcision did not appear to offer any protection from other sexually transmitted infections like HIV, gonorrhoea, chlamydia or genital warts.

Researchers at the University of New South Wales tracked 1427 homosexual men, two-thirds of whom had been circumcised, over three years with regular testing for infections.

They found no association between infection and circumcision status for any disease except syphilis, they told the Australasian Sexual Health Conference on the Gold Coast today."

...

"Any intervention like circumcision could only be partially effective so on the basis of this research I wouldn't be out there advocating it," Prof Grulich said.

"We wouldn't want people who are circumcised wrongly thinking that they're safe from it."

[Touchdown]

102. I know exactly what Clinical vs. Scientific means.

Clinical is results driven. "What happens when we do this?"

Scientific is explaination driven. :"WHY does this happen?"

So, if I'm so ignorant, tell me why circumcision cuts HIV risk by 60% in 500 freshly circumcised men in a 9 month study where they were told to refrain from sex for 4 months?

[pnwmom]

107. Your claims about the conduct of the three WHO studies are incorrect.

There were ELEVEN THOUSAND men followed in the three studies. I have no idea what 500 men you're talking about.

Here's info from ONE of the three studies, which followed 3,000 men for three years. The other subsequent long term studies, which involved 8,000 additional men, confirmed these results.

"In 2002, the scientists recruited more than 3,000 uncircumcised heterosexual men aged 18 to 24 from Orange Farm, a Johannesburg suburb where about 32 per cent of women have HIV.

"Half these men were then circumcised.

"Three years later, 51 of the uncircumcised men were diagnosed with HIV, compared with just 18 of those who had been circumcised.

"It means we prevented six or seven out of a possible ten infections," says Auvert.

"Because of the marked difference between the two groups, and following the advice of the Data Safety and Monitoring Board, the trial was stopped and all participants were offered circumcision.

"Two similar trials are currently underway in Kenya and in Uganda. Together, they involve another 8,000 men."

http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=2261&language=1

Epidemiology is a science, and its studies-- when they are well done, as these were -- are conducted scientifically.

Other researchers have been looking into the "why" that would explain the results of these epidemiological studies, and the results so far indicate that the lining of the foreskin is a place where HIV is especially likely to grow and multiply.

[Touchdown]

111. One analisys of the latest, and most touted study.

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html#uganda

The previous studies were flawed to say the least...

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#flawed

Up tgop of the latter link you will of course note that in every study, flawed or almost correct, the recommendation is always the same...Carthage must be Destroyed. . .er. Circumcision must be universal.

It's impossible to have a double blind study when the subjects are obviously surgically different.

You are taling about Langerhans Cells. Cells that attract bacteria and disease and smother them to death. There are more Langerhans Cells in the flods of the foreskin than anywhere else in the male body. God must've put them there for a reason. This study shows that they may be useful in binding, or trapping HIV viri.

http://cmmg.biosci.wayne.edu/asg/dendritic.html

But, of couse, those get removed from the body with the foreskin, and it eventually ends up in a jar of Oil of Olay...for a profit.

[pnwmom]

115. And this doesn't support your earlier claim.

What happened to your 500 men in a 9 month study?

I know nothing about who provided this "analysis," but I know that top HIV researchers from around the world came together in March to announce the new UN/WHO recommendation that now promotes circumcision to reduce the transmission of AIDS.

Your article includes the following quote.
"WHO, UNFPA, UNICEF and the UNAIDS Secretariat emphasize that their current policy position has not changed and that they do not currently recommend the promotion of male circumcision for HIV prevention purposes. However, the UN recognizes the importance of anticipating and preparing for possible increased demand for circumcision if the current trials confirm the protective effect of the practice."

That quote is outdated and has been superceded by the March 2007 statement of the WHO that reported the final results of its definitive studies and recommended circumcision as one PART of an HIV prevention program, along with condoms and other safe sex practices.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html

28 MARCH 2007 | PARIS/GENEVA -- In response to the urgent need to reduce the number of new HIV infections globally, WHO and the UNAIDS Secretariat convened an international expert consultation to determine whether male circumcision should be recommended for the prevention of HIV infection.

Related links

:: More information on male circumcision in HIV prevention

:: Male circumcision in HIV prevention (UNAIDS)


Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. The international consultation, which was held 6-8 March 2007 in Montreux, Switzerland, was attended by participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, researchers, human rights and women's health advocates, young people, funding agencies and implementing partners.

"The recommendations represent a significant step forward in HIV prevention," said Dr Kevin De Cock, Director, HIV/AIDS Department in WHO. "Countries with high rates of heterosexual HIV infection and low rates of male circumcision now have an additional intervention which can reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men. Scaling up male circumcision in such countries will result in immediate benefit to individuals. However, it will be a number of years before we can expect to see an impact on the epidemic from such investment."

There is now strong evidence from three randomized controlled trials undertaken in Kisumu, Kenya; Rakai District, Uganda (funded by the US National Institutes of Health); and Orange Farm, South Africa (funded by the French National Agency for Research on AIDS) that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. This evidence supports the findings of numerous observational studies that have also suggested that the geographical correlation long described between lower HIV prevalence and high rates of male circumcision in some countries in Africa, and more recently elsewhere, is, at least in part, a causal association. Currently, 665 million men, or 30 % of men worldwide, are estimated to be circumcised.

[Touchdown]

117. You didn't read enough.

It was the Kenyan Study, not the Ugandan one.

And, they were not "Top HIV researchers", but well known circumcision advocates. Keep reading.

[pnwmom]

122. All three studies involved several thousands of subjects.

None of them are similar to what you described earlier.

And the studies were all peer-reviewed and accepted at the major international HIV conference -- not a circumcision conference!

[Touchdown]

72. It also may be 5. You don't know.

Neither do the circumcisers. What they do know is that it's big money in America.

[pnwmom]

81. Actually, it's pretty cheap, as medical procedures go.

At least when it's done to newborns.

And in Africa, where the World Health Organization is campaigning for it to be used ALONG WITH condoms, it's a heck of a lot cheaper than HIV.

[Touchdown]

105. Yes, reducing human sexuality to a dollar value.

You are a true American. Money grubbing all the way.

Are you advocating that we do not own our own bodies, because of some flawed, stopped early study (when they got the results they wanted, before the follow-ups can prove them wrong) and that as long as their male, that they should be chopped apart for the profit of the private hospital industry, and the harvesting of foreskins for profit to the cosmetics industry?

I am a male. I don't feel I have any say as to a woman's reproductive choice, or the ownership of her body itself. How sad for you not to afford the same courtesy to me.

But I do get it. Your fighting back against "The Patriarchy".

[pnwmom]

108. I was merely addressing the previous poster, who implied that

doctors were making lots of money from the procedure. They aren't.

[Touchdown]

113. I am the previous poster.

...and when a mother (a friend of mine) who needed her son's toenails clipped gets ignored for 3 days, but is asked twice a day if she wants Jr. circumcised, with "NO!" being the continuous answer, there is a profit motive involved. Hospitals make no money off of toe/fingernail clippings. They do make $800-1500 off of a 5 minute circ procedure though.

Average price=$1000. Please tell me again how making $30,000 an hour is not making lots of money?

[pnwmom]

120. That surprises me. My son's cost $200.

[Touchdown]

126. IN 1970?

Whas this the co-pay? :shrug:

[pnwmom]

128. 1992, but yeah, it was a while ago.

[Touchdown]

129. Funny. It was $400 for me in 1965.

At least thats what my records say...That was back when it was done in 90% of boys though. In 1991 the rate was down to 65% circumcisions per male birth.

I guess the laws of supply and demand come into play here.;)

[pnwmom]

130. And I might be getting my sons mixed up. I'm probably remembering

the older one.

I'm amazed your parents still had those records. My sister died of a vaccine reaction, and when two of my children began to have reactions to the same vaccine, I would have loved to have gotten hold of my sister's records. But my parents didn't have anything, and neither did the hospital.

[Touchdown]

146. So what do you think of my friend's maternity ward stay?

Should she have been badgered to get her son cut so much? Having a baby is tiring enough, to be pressured by sales staff in scrubs to do something you don't want to do is a little much, don't you think?

BTW: Her husband went and bought her some clippers, because the boy was scratching the hell out of her breasts, and the nurses (sales-people) never did cut them.

[pnwmom]

149. Of course she shouldn't have been badgered about having the procedure.

None of my friends have mentioned having that happen to them, though. And most of them didn't have their sons circumcised because the doctors around here weren't pushing it and their insurance didn't cover it.

The Seattle area has one of the lower rates in the country, by the way.

[defendandprotect]

25. AIDS doesn't require "surgery" . . . !!!! Nor is it purposefully inflicted ---- !!!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Kinda depends on what FGM you're talking about, doesn't it?

A clitordectomy would not be comparable to a circumcision, but the removal of the clitoral hood would be, wouldn't it?

[Deep13]

21. Jesus Christ!

How about leaving the kid alone until she can decide for herself!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. First things first.

Are some forms of FGM comparable to circumcision?

[Deep13]

30. Well since girls don't have johnsons, I guess not. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Well if you're going to be obtuse, there's not much point in continuing.

[Deep13]

36. Direct answer. I'll word it differently this time.

No.

[Touchdown]

76. Yes. Much to the penis hater's chagrin.

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

[joshcryer]

82. "Very severe damage?"

Oops. Guess not.

[Touchdown]

106. Yes of course. The electric chair is not the same as a gas chamber.

:eyes:

[joshcryer]

155. Both of those result in death. Each of these have distinctly different results.

Make sense now? Males still get it on just fine without foreskin. Women without a clitoris are doomed to a life of pain sexually and in general.

[defendandprotect]

26. And you're for any of this . . . ????

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. I couldn't care less about circumcision.

So if certain forms of FGM are comparable to circumcision, and people don't have a problem with circumcision, then objections to those specific forms of FGM are...

fill in the blank.

[Deep13]

33. I have a problem with mutilating children.

Male circumcision is also nonanesthetic and causes infection to spread. Hitchens explains it better than I can in God Is Not Great.

[pnwmom]

44. Hitchens wrote his book before the World Health Organization

announced the results of its definitive studies and the U.N. began to recommend circumcisions, along with condoms, as a prevention for HIV.

[Deep13]

51. Yes, but he was talking about something very specific.

To wit, traditional moils in NYC using their mouths to remove the foreskin because the OT apparently requires it. Numerous cases of disease were recorded as a result of this practice, but the city declined to prohibit it because of the right to religious freedom.

[pnwmom]

55. You're right. That's a special case.

Ugh!

What is wrong with parents, anyway.

[JVS]

58. The ends don't justify the means

[pnwmom]

60. Tell that to all the adult men in Africa who are lining up

to get circumcisions.

You apparently can't imagine what it's like to live in an area where 30% or more of young adults have HIV.

(But if you are referring to the blood-sucking procedure, I agree.)

[JVS]

109. Of their own volition is fine, but to force children into it is wrong

[joshcryer]

158. Yeah, sure.

But you know, I'll condemn FGM before I go out and demonize people who do male circumcision, since they're in completely different ballparks.

One is akin to castration. Take your pick.

[defendandprotect]

66. Mutilation is never going to be a prescription for illness "prevention" . . .

and the UN seemed to go off the tracks here --

More than like AIDS is a man-made disease -- either from pollution, or from vaccines --

Perhaps in order to avoid breathing our polluted air, it will be recommended we block our nasal passages?

[Lilith Velkor]

73. By that logic, the remedy would be to cut the nose off.

[pnwmom]

83. That's not true. Circumcision first became widely used in this country

to lower rates of VD and urinary tract infections. STD's like syphilis were killers. Before we had antibiotics, UTI's, which are more common among uncircumcised baby boys, commonly led to kidney infections, which can cause permanent damage.

On the other hand, millions of women have had hysterectomies to prevent disease -- with varying levels of justification. And some women now are agreeing to removing breasts and ovaries if their genes put them at high risk for cancer.

[defendandprotect]

92. Yes. .. . there are certain fashions; plastic surgery quite common now . . .

perhaps I should have said, where there is common sense . ..
"mutilation will never be a prescription for disease prevention" --

Currently, in America, we have slash and burn . . . fear based medicine ---

and all we do is increase illness and disease --

[pnwmom]

96. I don't think the women who've had preventative mastectomies

think they're following any fashion.

What a way to trivialize such a difficult decision.

[defendandprotect]

133. First of all, circumcision is Bibical . . . the David, you recall . . ..

QUOTE:
That's not true. Circumcision first became widely used in this country
to lower rates of VD and urinary tract infections. STD's like syphilis were killers. Before we had antibiotics, UTI's, which are more common among uncircumcised baby boys, commonly led to kidney infections, which can cause permanent damage.UNQUOTE


First of all, circumcision is Bibical . . . the David, you recall . . . .

This is again "cultural" -- tribal --- tho the David only has a "nick" ....
evidently, once you begin these mutilations, there are always new excesses.

Unfortunately, circumcision is part of "fashion." Many men who might not consider circumcision for their sons often do so that they will not be "different." It is also still a large part of religious practice.

Children have ear infections; we do not cut off their ears -- !!!

Meanwhile, pediatricians in America recommend against circumcision.


and ---


QUOTE: On the other hand, millions of women have had hysterectomies to prevent disease -- with varying levels of justification. And some women now are agreeing to removing breasts and ovaries if their genes put them at high risk for cancer. QUOTE

and my response . . .

QUOTE: Yes. .. . there are certain fashions; plastic surgery quite common now . . .
perhaps I should have said, where there is common sense . ..
"mutilation will never be a prescription for disease prevention" --

Currently, in America, we have slash and burn . . . fear based medicine ---

and all we do is increase illness and disease -- UNQUOTE

To elaborate on that, we have done nothing but increase our rates of cancer and according to some sources, we have not improved survival rates over what we could do in the 1930's. . .
We now have a full blown cancer industry.

We all have thousands of cancer cells circulating in our bodies at all times.
With a fast moving cancer, it won't matter what you do.
With a slow moving cancer, you will have a chance.
The basic problem is the damage to our immune systems.
And, additionally . . . eating of animals/dairy. Notice the huge growth in women's breasts . . .
earlier puberty for females -- resulting from the hormones and chemicals in these foods and in our water.

This animal/dairy fat is stored on our bodies.
Evidently, your immune system cannot detect cancer cells thru animal fat.

Finally, we have a system where doctors are profiting from disease rather than wellness --
rather than prevention. Mutilation is not prevention -- it is fear-based "medicine."

And neither is male circumcision "medicine" -- and it does harm to males in many, many ways.

[defendandprotect]

137. We can all understand the fear-based choices . . .

don't try to spin what I am saying to you ---

Obviously, these women making these choices are also getting agreement/affirmation from doctors --

who in turn are profiting from these surgeries.

Meanwhile, I specifically mentioned plastic surgery because it is all over our TVs . . .
hyped for females of every age. And there is very little about it all that isn't "fashion."

[LeftyMom]

151. No, circumcision became common in this country to prevent mental illness caused by masturbation.

Really. Look it up.

[joshcryer]

152. Lotta good that did if true.

Really.

[pnwmom]

97. I forgot to mention tonsillectomies.

Before antibiotics, removing them was another important preventative measure. Two children in my extended family needed them even despite antibiotics.

[joshcryer]

156. I'm the only one in my family with his tonsils. :)

[pnwmom]

177. Don't you feel sorry for your other family members

who are always going to have to wonder what they might be missing?

I know, I'm heartless.

:shrug:

[leftynyc]

65. There is nothing similar about the two

You're being obtuse. FGM is obscene.

[joshcryer]

39. Clitoral hood removal is largely done by plastic surgeons and is not practiced by these hooligans.

So I don't know why you're trying to take the thread off the topic myself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Really?

Because I had heard it accounted for the majority of "traditional" FGM.

[joshcryer]

You heard completely wrong.

Do some basic UN fact checking.

In the modern world clitoral hood modification is done because some women are self-conscious of their genetalia. What is being practiced by these people is full clitoral removal.

[joshcryer]

47. Read this from the WHO:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

80% is "type 2" (clitoral hood plus labia and clitoral removal)

Completely and utterly barbaric.

[Zookeeper]

42. Have you ever heard of removing just the clitoral hood?

This isn't a careful surgical procedure. It's usually done crudely in unsanitary conditions. It would be comparable to hacking off a teen boy's penis and testes, without anesthesia.

I agree with the OP, that male circumcision is a different thread. (Heaven forbid we should have a conversation that doesn't center on men.)

[pnwmom]

45. Yes, Zookeeper. Heaven forbid! n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Yes.

"It would be comparable to hacking off a teen boy's penis and testes, without anesthesia. "

Yes, a clitordectomy would be. Are we talking about 21,000 clitordectomies in Britain?

[Zookeeper]

54. The whole point is to prevent the girl from being able....

to experience sexual pleasure, and can go so far as to remove the labia to achieve that. Removing just the clitoral hood would be pointless. I've never heard of a tradition of removing just the hood and the "surgical techniques" involved, likely wouldn't be up the task.

Can you provide a link to back up your claim on this?

[pnwmom]

57. And not just remove the clitoris, and all the labia,

but, in many cases, to sew the whole thing back up tight, letting it fuse together with only a tiny opening for all fluids to pass through. Then, at marriage, the husband gets to use a knife to open his wife back up! Although, before childbirth, a doctor often has to open up even more.

[Deep13]

61. .

:puke:

[pnwmom]

62. Yeah, me too. n/t

[joshcryer]

63. Only time I've ever heard of clitoral hood modification/reduction/removal is during labiaplasty.

With painstaking efforts not to harm the nerves in the clitoris. It's just inconcievable that they'd "just" remove the clitoral hood in the places where this is practiced, when it takes significant plastic surgery experience to be able to do this without harming the clitoris, which is why the WHO calls "type one" partial clitoris removal.

So to answer the question posed by the OP, you only see it actually done in plastic surgery, not in barbaric female torture practices.

[JVS]

56. yes

but is that what is done?

[shenmue]

17. Not that I'm in favor of either.

But one (the woman's) is a way of psychological control and depriving her of pleasure so she "won't cheat on her husband" (and won't enjoy herself, leaving enjoyment to the man only; while the other (the male's), however bad it is otherwise, at least doesn't deprive him of the ability to feel pleasure. Whatever it's good for now, it seems to have begun as some kind of tribal ritual in ancient times, imposed on them by older men. Not much freedom to go around, then. :(

[Deep13]

24. A case can me made that they are both designed to discourage promiscuity.

Still, on females it just seems so much more horrible.

[Touchdown]

67. How convenient for you.

Mrs. Mom who has hijacked MGM threads just to call people who want it stopped loonies, zealots, or some other epithet.

Disclaimer: If your another writer with "mom" in her username and this doesn't sound like you, then OOPS! my mistake...just like the Dr. said when he chopped my dick apart.

And...IT IS THE SAME!

[pnwmom]

86. Show me where I have called any names, here or in any circumcision threads.

All I have done is present the WHO sponsored research, three major large-scale studies, which to me -- as well as to HIV experts around the world -- are compelling.

Also, I've explained why doctors recommended it for our infant sons (kidney damage in an older sibling that might have been related to a UTI -- and UTI rates are higher in uncircumcised boys, and can occur without symptoms.)

Female genital mutilation in this country is practiced to control and/or eliminate female sexuality.

Male circumcision arose out of health concerns. Before modern sanitation and modern antibiotics, it was one of the few ways to address concerns about STD's and other problems.

[Touchdown]

110. You are guilty of spreading mis-information

Old wives tales (UTI's/Kidney damage), American Medical orthodoxy (Higher amongst un-circ...) and downright lack of historical knowledge. Male circumcision was to prevent masturbation, and to lower the sexual feelings and appetites in males during the Victorian era. They couched in "health" because they thought masturbation was unhealthy.

Regarding HIV...The last I heard, babies don't have sex.

Sanitation? How hard is it to get a boy to play with his cock in the shower?

Every "medical/preventative" justification for the continued practice since then has been proven false (Eurpoan and East Asian men have had no more UTIs that American men do, and they almost never circumcize.). Here's just a few more diseases that circumcision was supposed to cure.

Insanity
Rickets
Cancer
Blindness
Fidgeting
Spinal Paralisys
Ganghrene
Polio
...the list goes on

Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease. And it's most zealous fanatics have always used the disease Du-Jour to promote it. HIV/AIDS was all too predictable.

So excuse me for not believing that after 140 years, they FINALLY found a good reason to chop infant boys apart. I'll bet youu $100 right now, that this "compelling" study will be debunked in a decade, just like all the others including homosexuality and spinal meningitis have.

[pnwmom]

136. No, you are. After opposing circumcisions for a time, the American

Academy of Pediatrics changed its position to being neutral on the issue, because of the research that showed a clear link to a reduction in UTI's among boy babies who had had circumcision.

[Touchdown]

144. Prove it.

Link to it, and I'll show you links to a history of Circ advocacy from the writer (they always do).

I don't take Bill O'Reilly's words about what the Drmocrats are about. I wouldn't take a circumcisionist's words about the "medical benefits" of his personal cash cow.

[pnwmom]

147. I'm not bothering to do this for you, but for others out there who might

really want to be informed. You have black and white thinking on this issue, which is your right -- but it convinces me that you don't really care about hearing anything that doesn't conform to your ideas.

From the American Academy of Pediatrics

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

Abstract

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.


Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. This practice has been advocated for reasons that vary from symbolic ritual to preventive health measure. Until the last half century, there has been limited scientific evidence to support or repudiate the routine practice of male circumcision.

Over the past several decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has published several policy statements on neonatal circumcision of the male infant.1-3 Beginning in its 1971 manual, Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.

In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.5-7 In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either risks or benefits of this procedure.5

Because of the ongoing debate, as well as the publication of new research, it was appropriate to reevaluate the issue of routine neonatal circumcision. This Task Force adopted an evidence-based approach to analyzing the medical literature concerning circumcision. The studies reviewed were obtained through a search of the English language medical literature from 1960 to the present and, additionally, through a search of the bibliographies of the published studies.

SNIP

[Touchdown]

153. Thank you. That's the exact link I was expecting from you.

Now, lets go down the statement, shall we?


Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits...
Qualifier

however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.
Qualifier

To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision.
That RARELY happens in the US.

In 1989, because of new research ...newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.
Another qualifier

Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.

So how is the American AP somehow better? They're not. They'/re just sensitive to the cultural fashions of their host country.

In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either risks or benefits of this procedure.

Again, rarely, if ever done by American pediatrics. It's usually..."There! Now he'll be more popular with the girls. Excuse me, I tee off in 20 minutes."

Why all the qualifiers? Simple. BECAUSE THE SCIENCE IS NOT ALL IN. And whether you believe it or not, medical groups are like all other professional groups. They bow to political pressure, and usually err on the status quo. The AAP being known as the most conservative of all professional medical academies.

[pnwmom]

178. This statement represents a change from the Academy's earlier position

against circumcision. They're responding to newer studies on UTI's in babies that some parents, like my husband and I, will want to consider in our decision. Other parents will make other choices. The Academy recognized that the risks and benefits of the procedure appear to be in balance, so they're not taking a stand one way or another, but leaving it up to the parents.

You are right, the science is not all in. The science will never all be in, as long as there are scientists. We have to go with the best of what we have, and in this case, at this point in time -- there is more than one possible educated decision. Educated, conscientious, boy-loving people may differ.

As opposed to FGM, whose only proponents are either ignorant or trying to control women.

[Deep13]

2. Can we thank empty-headed cultural tolerance for this crime against humanity?

Or is the Crown cracking down on this?

[shenmue]

9. Who thinks this is tolerable?

Don't speak for someone else. I don't know anyone, other than the people doing it, who thinks it's all that great.

[Deep13]

18. It seems that a lot of barbaric practices against children are tolerated...

...because it is someone's culture or, especially, religion. I know that the UK in particular is having trouble deciding where tolerance ends and public interest begins. It is a long story and I won't go into detail.

In this American state, child neglect is a crime and neglect that ends in death is homicide. Refusing medical treatment or using nonstandard treatments based on religious belief, however, is an absolute defense to a charge of neglect, even if it result's in the victim's death.

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. As the article says:

"It is outlawed under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 and the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. Practitioners and those sanctioning the abuse can be jailed for up to 14 years, but no one has been prosecuted in Britain.

In July the Metropolitan police offered £20,000 for information which leads to successful prosecution of anyone perpetrating or arranging FGM, in the first reward for a general crime rather than a specific case."

The latter act "makes it an offence for the first time for UK nationals or permanent UK residents to carry out FGM abroad, or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of FGM abroad, even in countries where the practice is legal" - see http://www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=548 .

No, the country has no toleration for it, but it's done underground - like various other criminal activities.

[defendandprotect]

29. This is "culture" put in place by patriarchy . . . in a war on females ---

The patriarchal drive to dominate females continues on, seeking ways to handicap females in any way possible -- from foot binding to FGM ....

[Deep13]

43. ...to high heel shoes--to rules about what is "lady-like."

George Bush is a commanding figure, but Hillary Clinton is a bitch.

I fucking hate it.

I bitched out the head of the laundry deptartment at a swanky hotel in Boston because she charged my wife more to launder a shirt than she charged me. Oh, it's a preprinted form, I have to call this collared T-shirt a "blouse." After asking if she charged extra for Black customers, she backed down when I threatened to complain to the attorney general.

[aikoaiko]

3. few cultures are perfect, but fgm is completely fuct.

[defendandprotect]

64. You have to examine the source of "culture" . . . much of it is put in place by

organzed patriarchal religions . . ..

[shenmue]

6. Congratulations, crazy fanatics!

Thanks for making the world a more horrible place!

:puke:

:grr:

:dunce:

Oh my g*d, will the stupid shit ever stop?

[Deep13]

8. How can you argue with people...

...who think their atrocities are the right thing?

[joshcryer]

7. OMFG HOLY C#$U

SERIOUSLY? OMFG. That's incredible! The worst news I've heard this month! INSANE!

[Deep13]

13. It's routine in much of Africa.

Horrible, painful, dangerous, debilitating, but routine.

[joshcryer]

34. I know very well, I just cannot believe that it's happening in Britain!

Incredible!

[aikoaiko]

79. not quite "much of Africa" but it is all the other things you say

[pnwmom]

15. A few years ago the doctors in one of Seattle's hospitals debated this

because parents were coming to them and asking for the procedure. For a period of time, they actually had agreed to perform "cuts" in order to lower the risk of girls getting the full procedure somewhere else. But a public outcry ended this policy, I believe.

But who really knows what individual doctors here might be doing.

[AuntPatsy]

32. they have no problem screaming to make abortion illegal but ignore this very real

sick and dangerous practice on young women?

I had to take my daughter yesterday to the Dr's, we passed a group holding up anti abortion signs...

My daughter freaked out, we were at a read light, she opened her window and began yelling at this people, she said, who do you people think you are, you have no business bothering others with your ignorant bs, she told them to get lives, she then told them, if they cared so much they would be out trying to help feed starving children in the world and or adopting the millions of children world wide who are in orphanages....

They didn't react, they just stared and we moved on. Honestly these people make me sick, they have no problem standing around a street corner for hours on end holding signs that mean NOTHING if they are ignoring the millions of children already born world wide who could use people fighting for them, these people in mind are nothing more than a nuisance.

[leftynyc]

68. The most proud I've ever been of my father was

when around 20 years ago, we passed a family planning clinic that had protesters screaming stuff and he pulled the car over, got out and started screaming much of the same stuff your daughter did. I cried with pride.

[joshcryer]

37. Looks like the male circumcision people are taking over the thread despite this...

Shame.

[pnwmom]

49. It always happens, so I thought I'd see if it could be averted.

Guess it can't.

My problem is I can't seem to help myself from answering back when people want to equate the two. Ugh.

[Touchdown]

70. You may be PNW's Mom, but not mine.

I don't have to take orders from you. BTW: Here's something for you to help yourself from answering back...

http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html


"Ultimately, the message is clear: genital mutilation is gendered. These male and female genital operations are not merely seen to differ in degree, they are seen to differ in kind. Thus, despite the heterogeneous voices speaking out against female circumcision, a common thread unites many: all forms of female genital cutting are seen to constitute a sexual mutilation and violation of bodily integrity, and male genital operations are dismissed as benign. "

[joshcryer]

84. The link you post is a straw man.

This is about sexual functionality. By saying that male circumcision (which has been practiced for eons and we're still making babies like crazy) is comparable or even equal to FGM you are devaluing the issue, you are saying, incorrectly, that male circumcision is "just as bad" as female mutilitation. It is not. They're completely and utterly two different categories. FGM is akin to removing the glans penis if not full castration. Any other argument here is absurd at best.

[Touchdown]

100. Spoken like a true American excepionalist.

"Our atrocities on newborns are nothing compared to the brutality of savage nations."

Edit- BTW: The FGM map of where it occurs and where it's illegal I posted further down the thread (which got no response) came from the same site you dismiss.

[pnwmom]

112. This is the brutality of the most extreme, but not rare, form of FGM.

Without anesthesia, the practitioner uses a knife or a stone or whatever else is handy to completely scrape off the girl's clitoris and her inner labia. Then her outer labia are sewn up together -- or perhaps, pinned together with thorns -- with only a single small hole left for the passage of fluids (menstrual and urine). Then her legs are bound together from the hip to the ankles for about 40 days to ensure that lots of scar tissue is formed. When the girl-woman marries, her husband takes a knife and opens her up again. She'll need to be opened up more when -- or if -- she ever gives birth. But she's less likely to be able to carry any pregnancy to term.

The more common procedure, thankfully, is simply to lop off the whole clitoris, in order to eliminate sexual response in the female.

But go ahead, keep thinking this is comparable to removing the foreskin for disease prevention.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

118. We have a similar proportion of these cases in our country as Britain,

and in all this time there has only been one prosecution, for a father who cut off his daughter's clitoris with a scissors.

I'm sorry that you're distressed about your procedure, and I realize that not every man is happy with the results. But you're likely wrong in thinking it wasn't done for disease prevention. I don't know how old you are, but after World War II, when they observed that soldiers without circumcisions had developed a lot more infections than men who had them, the practice began to take hold.

[Touchdown]

125. 42, and it doesn't matter what they thought in WWII

The fact that a good bar of soap and a lack of puratanism would've cured 90% of those infections still goes lost on people to this day. It's still false, whether they thought it right or not. And now you are justifying the continued practice by touting a (ok, 3) studies that are too soon to be clear facts regarding HIV prevention.

I said before, Europe and East Asia have no more UTIs or Kidney infections than The US men do. They almost never circumcise. Aside from the heavy sex for sale Thailand, Europe and Asia have less cases of HIV/AIDS than the USA does, and...the almost never circumcise. Something i these WHO studies doesn't jibe with statistics, or observable facts when the rest of the worlkd contradicts their findings.

My $100 wager is still open.

[joshcryer]

157. Too bad a good majority don't have access to a good bar of soap or clean water...

...which is in part why the UN has made its recommendations about circumcision in Africa.

[Touchdown]

163. And the instruments they use are sterile too.

20 youths die in botched circumcisions, and another 100 injured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3069491.stm

Their medical instruments?



Regardless of how much real doctors, and helth money we send them, the vast majority of them will get circumcised this way, and you can't deny that.

[joshcryer]

166. Yeah, for illegal "initiation schools" are a cross reference of all circumcisions..

Funny that. Aborigine have been doing it since before the dawn of human civilization.

Those initiation schools sound like barbaric bullshit similarily to the same places that initiate FGM with a fucking sharp rock.

[Touchdown]

170. They're in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the WHO recommends

...circing. Any wonder why these barbaric, you rightfully pointed out, schools have been increasing in attendance since the HWO report came out last year?

Did you think that a large minority of them would actually go to a clinic to have it done? In South Africa? Where there may be white doctors, who still may be distrusted so soon after Apartheid?

[pnwmom]

87. Yeah, I know. I'm not the boss of you, LOL.

Thank goodness.

[Zookeeper]

52. Probably for the same reason the WHO and other organizations

have ignored this problem for decades (under the guise of not interfering with the "cultural traditions" of non-Western countries): Girls and women don't really matter; if it's not about MEN, why bother.

[joshcryer]

59. Women = property

That's how it's been since primitive times. It's going to be *very* hard to get rid of this mindset, but it's happening... slowly.

[Beerboy]

123. I see nothing to suggest the mindset

is being gotten rid of; the OP cites: Its study, funded by the Department of Health, also found the number of children born to women with FGM rose from an estimated 6,000 in 2001 to a likely figure of 9,000 in 2004.
You could still be correct though, that sentence in the OP is poorly written. Do they mean a static number of fgm females are having more kids, or are there an increasing number of fgm females in Britain?
Judging by the seeming lax enforcement of UK anti-fgm laws, those practicing it are justified in concluding the UK is merely a different geographical area without authority over the culture of their native geographical area.

[pnwmom]

141. We're lax, too. After I read the one on Britain, I found similar

statistics for the U.S. Everywhere there are immigrant communities who come from parts of the world where FGM is practiced, there will be immigrants who want to bring the custom here.

But as far as I can tell, there has only been one case actually prosecuted in the US, a case in Georgia a few years ago. They had to use child abuse statutes since there was no law against FGM at the time -- but they have enacted one since.

[muriel_volestrangler]

142. It could be both

But that figure says nothing about the 'mindset'; it's giving the number of children born. The point is that if the mothers were mutilated, the children are at risk of being mutilated as well.

Enforcement can be a problem - stopping someone taking a child out of the country would need more than knowing their family is from an area where FGM is carried out. You need someone to blow the whistle on each case - hence the reward. Like child abuse in families, the children themselves have probably been frightened too much to speak up themselves.

[JitterbugPerfume]

11. Alice Walker wrote about this several years ago

with all to vivid description and pictures. The book is Warrior Marks


read it and weep for the children

[pnwmom]

50. I didn't know about a nonfiction book. I read her fictional account,

and that was horrific enough.

Good for her.

[RoseMead]

78. It is also the subject of her novel

Possessing the Secret of Joy. It's sort of a sequel to The Color Purple, where one of the child characters from The Color Purple has to deal with FGM as an adult.

[AuntPatsy]

14. This practice is criminal, why can't England enforce such practices as criminal

and prosecute those that participate in such horrific practices?

[pnwmom]

16. Why can't the U.S.? 168,000 were "at risk" here, using 1990 data.

I don't know whether the number would be lower (because of educational outreach) or higher (because of immigration patterns) today.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:
92dIXymdvc0J:www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_bp_fgmlawsusa.pdf+%22female+genital+mutilation%22+%22United+States%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

At the request of HHS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under-
took a study to determine the prevalence of FGM in the United States. Using data from
the 1990 U.S. Census, along with country-specific prevalence data on FGM, the CDC
estimated that in 1990, there were approximately “168,000 girls and women living in the
United States with or at risk for FGM/FC.”

[AuntPatsy]

19. Your not serious are you?

[pnwmom]

35. I'm having trouble getting that link to copy correctly, because

that smiley wants to pop up in the middle of the address. So I broke the URL into two parts. It looks like a serious report to me.

[Touchdown]

71. It is a crime in the UK.

Here's a map of where it's still legal. Blue means it's a crime to FGM.



Green=FGM rare
Gold+Prevalent, but number unknown
The pinks <25% to darker pinks <75%
Red= more than 75% rate of females circumcized.

Original page...

http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html

[defendandprotect]

38. I believe Egypt recently totally banned it --

We need active education/propaganda against these practices in our schools ---
and in government --

Actually, I thought France? had done something to stop this --
And why not England/Wales?

And, didn't the US outlaw this?

AND, we especially need to speak out when these practices are connected to religious beliefs.

[leftynyc]

69. Unfortunately, like honor killings,

FGM rarely gets prosecuted and/or the penalties are jokes.

[defendandprotect]

93. I would have hoped as Alice Walker brought this more into the open . . ..

and it is such a frightening attack on females to even envision!!! ---
that we would have more political action to stop the countries which this is still happening.

But -- just look at Afghanistan and Iraq and the situation the women and children are suffering there now -- and very little discussion of it in our MSM --

We need more women in government --- not less than 40% -- not more than 60% ---
and I think we need gender balance laws to get there --

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. The U.S. did outlaw it, thanks to legislation sponsored by

former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-Colorado).

So did most European countries that have significant populations of African immigrants.

That doesn't mean that parents don't try to get around the ban by paying someone secretly or taking the child back to the Old Country for the procedure.

[WinkyDink]

75. Sexual torture, to put it plainly. Why this is not a CRIME, I don't know.

[Rhythm and Blue]

77. Because "it's their culture,"

as its apologists snivel.

[pnwmom]

88. A few years ago, the first case said to ever be prosecuted in the US

was prosecuted in Georgia. They didn't have an anti-FGM law at the time, so it was prosecuted under other child abuse laws.

The father was found guilty of cutting off a two year old girl's clitoris with a scissors, after the girl told doctors on videotape what had happened to her. The man came from a country where FGM is still widely practiced.

[aikoaiko]

80. I teach a course in human sexuality with muslim women and its interesting what they say

The women I had who were from the gulf region (Iran and Saudi Arabia) were repulsed by the practice even though they considered themselves good Muslims, but the woman from the Sudan was really upset that classmates were disgusted. I think she had it done to her as a girl.

[pnwmom]

89. It must have been shocking to the woman from the Sudan

since she was probably taught to believe that female genitals themselves were repulsive. How sad.

[defendandprotect]

94. It wasn't originally a Muslim practice, but got picked up by them and carried along ---

and only in recent years has there been some shame about that involvement -- and though they seem to resent that the connection is pointed to and still exist . . . there seemed also to be a reluctance among Muslim leaders to stop it. ?????

This is a very sad thing that when females are taught these practces and they are inflicted upon them, some of them even begin to do this to others. It's simply brainwashing.

I'm upset when in America I see women wear the scarves --
what greater symbol of oppression could there be?

I was watching a highschool tennis match the other day and one of the young girls from a nearby town was playing with the "scarf" on.

[pnwmom]

95. Hair coverings don't bother me

but the full body covers with only the eyes peeking through some lace make me uncomfortable. I can't help but wonder if the woman (who is usually following behind her husband) has been coerced. I've read descriptions of what it feels like to be inside one, and they're just as hot and stuffy as they appear -- plus, they make navigating very difficult. Of course, that's the idea I guess, since the cultures that promote them also promote the idea of keeping women at home.

[defendandprotect]

131. Yes, burqas simply erase women; disappear them . , , , ,, ,

But, obviously, we're not going to see those right now in America or the UK . . . .
However, we will see the scarf and many are objecting -- in France and UK, for instance --
it's disruptive of societies, for one thing.

For another, it's like gang wear. It sets people apart. It isolates; it creates fear.

But even worse, it's really like the Nazi flag -- it's that symbolic of suppression of females.

And, if we do not take the same steps that France and the UK have taken to stop the wearing of the scraves here, then the brainwashing and the intimidation of femalest to wear them will continue successfully.

I watched the tennis players the other day and I thought the four-some very interesting. We have a basically "white" town.... Our home players were a strawberry blonde and a blonde; really cute kids in sharp tennis uniforms. Fair players; obviously knew fundamentals, body positions, etal. The opponents from a nearby town didn't have uniforms. One was a dark skinned girl, slightly pudgy. The other was a very tall slim girl wearing the scarf -- she almost looked like an 11 year old boy. The last I saw of the score it was 14 to 0. One of our home girls came to chase a ball and I asked her if the opponents had a coach with them -- she said "yes." And the reason I did is because the visitors had no form at all. But, they had an enchanting way about them -- chatting all the time and, though trying, laughing at themselves as they failed.
If you are fair minded, you know this is awkward and a situation you want to avoid. I was hoping that there would be a break in play and that the two visitors would file out in my direction for a few minutes because I could have improved their game immensely very quickly. Anyway, I did see that the four girls were visiting and laughing at the end and while the home team girls had outward beauty and were very pleasant and kindly telling the visitors to "practice" . . .. there was also something very charming about the other two girls and obviously the home team girls recognized that. It was interesting. When I came home I was still angry that any girls were put in that position, untrained and I was ranting at my husband when I got home. How could a coach let them go out there like that!!! Maybe this seems silly to you, but it still bothers me. I don't think you'd have ever seen the equivalent with males put out there to look so bad. I'm quite sure it wouldn't happen.

[pnwmom]

134. Actually, I've seen burqas a number of times, right in my suburb.

The first time was at a Sears store, where the hubbie was at the counter speaking to the female salesclerk, while the wifey lurked behind. I was surprised at how visceral my reaction was -- it was as if I had seen him leading his wife around by a leash.

As far as the tennis story goes -- I guess I'm glad those parents were willing to put their girls "out there" -- untrained or not! I never really learned to play tennis, though I took lessons, because I felt too embarrassed every time I hit a ball into some adjoining court. I cared more about looking bad than I did about learning to play.

[defendandprotect]

139. Now I'm even more concerned . . ..

Religion is, of course, a personal belief system ---
until you bring it into the public arena.

Re the tennis . . . no . . . the parents may have no idea of the game or what the kids can do.
And it should be the coach's responsibility to train them. And the school should ensure that they have a coach who can teach. But -- a few minutes with a book on tennis and these bright girls would have gotten it right away -- they were physically fit and able -- just doesn't work when you're
unaware of body form which makes it all work. They simply had no information. And, keep in mind most of our team probably have very expensive private lessons.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. Should be a crime.

No question. Despicable that this is taking place anywhere in this day and age, much less a first world country.

[Laurier]

99. Agreed.

It's a horrific practice and there is no place in civilized society for it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. It is a crime, but hard to prosecute if the community keeps quiet about it

:shrug:

[Colobo]

98. A proud uncut male here!

[pnwmom]

114. And the reason this is about guys is because . . . ?

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with just what the female procedure entails. FGM and male circumcision aren't comparable.

(And you can do your own study. Ask all the circumcised guys you know if they like sex. Then ask a woman with FGM.)

[Touchdown]

119. They would all say yes, because they don't know what they're missing.

You seem to forget that in Africa, many young females do this because its just as cultural for them as male MGM is for us here. Many of them don't know it's supposed to be pleasurable, and not painful. It's disgusting, to be sure, but they are brainwashed into believing this bullshit.

Likewise most cut men don't know how much pleasure can be had in the journey to orgasm, as opposed to just the 10 seconds of the goal post itself.

[pnwmom]

121. Reducing sensitivity is not the same as eliminating orgasms completely.

And based on how sex-obsessed this culture is, it doesn't look like a high circumcision rate is slowing most men down.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

135. That's your opinion, obviously. My husband and sons wouldn't agree.

My husband was the one who actually decided to have our sons circumcised (as I said, because of our older child we were concerned about UTI's). It seemed to me that he was in the better position to make this decision. Then I found a doctor who would do it with anesthesia (in a time when most didn't) and my husband stood there with the doctor and watched it being done. He said the only time my son cried was when he got the injection of the numbing agent.

[Touchdown]

143. You didn't answer my point.

Regardless of deletion (and who knows why), my point is that I see a glaring double standard with you. The only difference I see between FGM and MGM is a matter of degree. Only the physical degrees of damage are different. The emotional scars once one learns the truth of what was lost and why, make not one whit of difference.

It was your son's foreskin, not your husband's, not your's and not your Doctor's, and you took it from him with only a fear of medical need as opposed to an actual medical need.

Anasthesia or not, the point for me is that it should've never been removed in the first place.

In this, and other male circ threads, you have stood up un-apoligetically and allowed your son to be strapped to a table and have part of his personal sovereignty surgically removed without his consent, claiming it's for his own good, then you turn around and claim indignation and horror when this occurs to the opposite gender, just because your culture and your medical establishment doesn't practice it with regularity. You appear to me to have a cutural, and gender based double standard when it concerns your flesh and blood as opposed to strange girls from a different religion. You blame a "patriarchy" for one, and justify the other with "prevention". They are both a violation of the owner's body.

FGM is horrid and cruel, don't get me wrong. It is barbaric and evil IMO. It should be stopped, the perps should be brought to justice (wherever it occurs, regardless of religious justifications) to the fullest extent of the law. I just don't give a pass to the USA because it's opposite gender equivelant been practiced for over 100 years.

And let's hope your 16/17 year old continues to disagree, and doesn't find out exactly what he lost, lest he resents his father and you like I do my parents for not questioning the quacks enough, and not protecting me when I was the most vulnerable in my life.

One more thing...I know you wanted to keep MGM away from this thread, but keep in mind, I didn't join in to this until you posted the Africa HIV/Circ studies and the WHO recommendations.

[pnwmom]

148. I posted the WHO info because as soon as this thread began, some anti-circ

people jumped in. As always. And I don't think one side of the medical argument for circumcision should be presented without the other.

I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to discuss a woman's issue here without men trying to make it about them. And I fervently disagree with you that FGM and male circumcision are just a matter of degree. If doctors were performing "Lorena Bobbits" in order to keep men from engaging in sex, leaving men just a hole to pee through, and sewing the appendage back on at the time of marriage, that would be comparable. (Except the women who lose clitorises never get anything put back on. They just get cut open again.)

I'm sorry that you are so distressed by your procedure. I'm sure your parents must deeply regret their decision, knowing how you resent them for it.

[Touchdown]

150. See, you still don't get it.

This is a human rights issue. Saharan Afirca is guilty, and the USA is also guilty. Nice that you ignore my reference to the emotional issue, and stick with your convenient physical aspect. Genital mutilation is not about gender to me. It's about who owns our bodies, and who get's the right to make decisions on what gets cut off.

I really wish you would stop patronizing me and saying that you're "sorry", because it's very obvious that you aren't.

And for the record, Post number #2 has it right, and that's the person you jumped on. He made it a human rights issue, and you made it a male hijacking issue.

[Touchdown]

145. Re-wording because my point was lost

Just because there is less sensitivity doesn't mean that the practice should continue in the USA. It's a matter of personal sovereignty. Either you think we are the owners of our own bodies, or you don't. A baby isn't going to have sex for 15-18 years. Cutting off a part of his body to prevent a possible STD infection years away when he's a baby is a violation of his body, his ownership of that body, and his personal sovereignty. If a boy actually gets a UTI, then look into the options, but don't cut off a healthy part of a body, just because there's a less than 10% chance it "might" happen.

Parents are only temporary stewards of their newborn's bodies, not the actual owners. Somewhere along the line, many parents forgot that. First do no harm.

[joshcryer]

154. Why do you people insist on interjecting a completely different issue?

Why? Why can't you let a discussion on FGM be a discussion on FGM? Why do you compare the two when they're incomprable?

[Touchdown]

160. Because they're not, and I didn't start it.

I wasn't the one that posted circing cures AIDS by 60%. The OP did that first.

Human rights is human rights, and violations are violations. I see no gender differences in mutilation. You disagree, then that's not my problem. Smoke some more weed.
Next question!

[joshcryer]

161. "I have a problem with both types."

The OP was merely responding to this bullshit.

I see a distinction between both times. Something people here seem to be missing by equating the two. I mean look at the uninformed rhetoric all throughout the thread.

"Well FGM isn't bad because they do the procedure comparable to male circumcision." WRONG.

[Touchdown]

165. I agree with post 2, you don't. Smoke a bowl.

I believe they are both horrible butchery, and if my neo-natal Dr. was still alive I'd sue his pants off for butchering me.

"Well FGM isn't bad because they do the procedure comparable to male circumcision." WRONG.

What suck fuck said this? I must've missed that one when I read through this thread twice.

[joshcryer]

169. I believe one is absolute butchery and the other is archaic that has occured everywhere...

...for some reason or another. Circumcision has occured everywhere, by itself, without any single known cause. It is prelevant in many primitive tribes around the world. Thus I do not consider it "butchery" in any sense of the word because it does not by any means result in the same thing that FGM does. But you insist on comparing the two.

So unless you have problems getting it up I imagine you're just playing the victim without having actual reason to. You know you can grow it back right? If you want you can! Really!

BTW, reread Bornaginhooligan's posts, where he attempted to equate the two forms, by especially distorting that FGM was more of the "clitoral hood" variety (which would be comparable, as plastic surgeons do that).

I know of no plastic surgeon who will remove a womans clit. None.

[Touchdown]

174. You don't know the history about it.

And yeah, it is archaic, and should go the way of leeches and bloodletting.

This is in no way to diminish the savagery of FGM, just that we as a nation with a for profit health care system, where every doctor and hospital makes big bucks not only from the insurance companies, but also selling infant forskins to the cosmetics industry (which is called harvesting, and is illegal...still they get away with it), that we should not look upon FGM with some sort of smug superiority.

The OP brought up the AIDS/Africa subject first. She lost any right to deny thread-jackers after that. If she didn't like the 2nd post's point, then it should've been ignored by everyone.

And yes, I am going through "restoration", but it will NEVER give me back what God gave me, and some Quack took away.

I never responded to BAH's posts, because I thought that a naive at best POV. FGM is pure butchery, no matter how much is cut off, and those that continue to practice it, should be punished severely.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

159. What part of "This thread isn't about you" don't you understand?

:grr:

[Touchdown]

162. What part of "human rights, no matter what" don't you?

:eyes:

I forgot. Excuse me. One form of butchery is because of the "Patriarchy", the other "is for the boy's own good. Besides it looks prettier that way."

I didn't think it was liberal to be exclusionary. Thank you for setting me straight Lydia. That's what I get for being a man and not castrated. I just don't know my place.:eyes:

[joshcryer]

164. One form is torture that renders the member completely inoperable and in excruciating pain.

The other is something that has been practiced by certain people for 2k years (for whatever reason), and hardly effects the member at all.

Which is more concerning? Which is more of a humans rights violation?

Something that is done but has practically no effect (and has potential benefits).

Or something that is done but has life-altering effects which are nigh impossible to reverse?

[Touchdown]

167. "and hardly effects the member at all."

You are talking to somebody who it affected VERY deeply. Not only physically, but also emotionally.

I'm not into degrees. Are we the USA, the example of human rights? Or are we butchers, just not as bad as others so that makes us morally superior?

Something that is done but has practically no effect (and has potential benefits).

Total load of shit. Read up on the subject.

Or something that is done but has life-altering effects which are nigh impossible to reverse?

Take out the "or" and you've got my POV in a nutshell.

[joshcryer]

172. So you writhe in pain when having sex?

You're unable to masturbate? Climax? Have an erection? I'm sorry if you have issues with your genetalia, but the vast majority of males who have had the procedure do not.

If your procedure was done late in life I could see more complications due to it.

[joshcryer]

173. I'm done with this thread pnwmom.

Good luck.

Next time maybe not responding to the "FGM equates male circumcision" people will be useful. But this is bullcrap.

[Touchdown]

175. Or so they (and you) think

Not that I can convince you of anything, because once a guy learns that he's been cheated, the first defense is to deny and attack (I've talked to others like you, always the same response and hostility).

So this "vast majority" of males that don't know what they're missing, means that the minority who does should just shut up and be happy that their personal sovereignty was violated without their consent. I don't buy that these majority have no problem, because few in this country are allowed to know exactly what is lost when a foreskin is removed, only that it's "healthy" for them.

Done as an infant, and it's function is secondary to the morality of destroying my body part without my consent. Got that? It's my foreskin. Not my parent's, not my doctor's, not that hospital's and not Lamcome Paris'.

[pnwmom]

179. You might want to give serious thought as to why this has affected

you, in particular, so deeply emotionally.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

176. For some reason, you seem to think that you can hijack someone else's thread

just because you're obsessed.

What if the shoe were on the other foot?

What if you started a thread on male circumcision (as you are welcome to do) and it was hijacked by a bunch of women who insisted on talking about FGM?

[Touchdown]

180. Would not bother me in the slighest.

It is butchery. It is disgusting. It is a symptom of sex-negative bullshit religious dogma and terrorism. It may be pricaticed by a religionn that we in the USA are unfamiliar with, but it's worth discussing. I have never objected to FGM being discussed in an MGM thread.:hi:

[Duppers]

138. where women's rights are respected, civilization flourishes

In searching for a similar quote as my subject line, I found Kofi Annan's speeches. If you have not read any of them, I urge you to do so, especially his Nobel lecture in 2001:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kofi_Annan#Nobel_lecture_.282001.29


And I found this: "Arab men will not get respect from the west until they earn it by allowing women equal rights and clam their tempers down towards those whom they disagree ..." But I will not link it, as some here find its author so very offensive.


Antipathetic misogyny exists in many degrees and in many places, even here in cyberspace.

[pnwmom]

140. Thanks, I will read that. n/t

[Bread and Circus]

171. cultures that don't respect women are cultures made of animals

[Bread and Circus]

168. I'm sorry, but that cultural practice is butchery, fucked-up, ignorant,

and abhorrent. Fuck those people that do that to little girls.

They need to get a goddam education.

And if u move to a country, respect their fucking laws or get the fuck out.

I'm and uncircumcised white american male and everytime I look at my penis I thank my mother she wasn't a stupid-ass when I was a baby. She had the brains to buck the cultural idiocy and leave my penis alone.