I just finished watching a episode of Law and Order where the defendant was
on trial for killing a doctor who was about to practice a female
circumcision ritual on his daughter. Time and time again I have seen the
touching, fussy/floral interviews with Barbara Walters on the tragedy that
women face in Africa due
to female circumcision.
Now from what I can tell everyone seems to think that female circumcision,
even in it's lightest most sterile forms, is thought to be barbaric and
violating. People tend to react in such a way that says to me "Female
circumcision is wrong in every circumstance!" I couldn't agree more.
But why in a country would this seem so strange and barbaric (in a country
that sees this as a very violating mutilation close to that of rape) as it
has similar customs to males? Why did the United States circumcise 80% of
it's baby boys in the 1980's and 60% in the 1990's if they feel so strongly
about it towards girls?
Why is it extreme to circumcise a girl, but great to cut a boy? Doesn’t
this violate the sexual rights of males?
I have a whole range of personal experiences and a library of knowledge to
refer to on this subject. But I am not sure how to convey this information
to people. I have a friend of mine that said “This is something people tend
not to think about”. That thought personally disturbs me, as it is has to
do with something that is so precious to a male; his sexuality and his
sexual organs (believe it or not, to a guy they really matter.. see how
they feel if you take them away).
What I want from you all is a discussion on what you think of male
circumcision. For it, or against it and the logic behind that. Really, I
want to know why? Hopefully we will be able to hear from all perspectives;
young and old, male and female as you all make the decision to act on this
matter: it is out of the hands of the infant to do so, sadly.
____________________ The OBOLISK is Divine.
Starlight
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 618 Registered: 27/9/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 17/3/2003 at 07:12 PM
Well, I think the reasoning behind the outrage over the female circumcision
issue, is that it was actually done in this country on women of European
decent as well. It was one of the treatments for "hysteria" as they called
it. What happens with female circumcision is that sometimes only the
clitoris is removed, and sometimes the labia are removed as well. In women,
this causes infections and painful urination (as our urethra is not nearly
as long as men's are), and painful intercourse. The popular view at one
point was that circumcising males meant that they would not have to worry
about yeast infections and urinary tract infections near as much if there
were no foreskin. However, you are right about it seeming to be barbaric
and the choice is not the infant it's being done to. The good thing is that
it's rather rare for there to be "mistakes" during male circumcision, and
that males who grow up and become sexually active adults, do not experience
pain generally from being circumcised, even though their foreskin has been
removed. They also experience pleasurable orgasm. However, women who've had
their clitoris removed, usually have some sort of discomfort or pain as a
result during sex or manual stimulation, and they do not experience any
type of clitoral orgasm as they don't have a clitoris. Unless they are able
to have a vaginal orgasm, and many women who have a clitoris do not, then
they are only serving as a recepticle for a penis during sex in many cases.
The key point is that while some religions feel that male circumcision is
required, and some feel that female circumcision is required. The majority
of the underlying reasons for female circumcision is not cleanliness...it's
to deliberately cause the woman not to "crave" sex...which is bizarre...but
true. On the other hand, the majority of the underlying reasons for male
circumcision is considered cleanliness and easier care of the genitals...or
to "look" like daddy...it's not meant to stave off their sexual craving in
the least. Well that's what all my researching on the subjects of
circumcision has basically yielded in answers for my questions.
____________________ "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never
tried before." ~Mae West
Sticupus
Fanatic
Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 17/3/2003 at 07:32 PM
I'll get into the historical origins of male circumcision later (as it is
very similar), but what I am curious about is what would you do to your
child and why?
____________________ The OBOLISK is Divine.
Starlight
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 618 Registered: 27/9/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 17/3/2003 at 11:23 PM
Personally, I would not have a child circumcised. This is because I feel
that if they really want that when they are older, then they have that
option, cuz once it's done...it's done.
I don't think it's right to cut on a child (especially without
anesthetic)...if it's not actually necessary medically and take away that
decision that they may resent you for later.
____________________ "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've
never
tried before." ~Mae West
Ironboots
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 893 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 18/3/2003 at 07:00 AM
I'm alright with circumcision, being circumcised myself.
And I'm not sure that letting the decision fall to the child is a good
thing. For one, he'll be old enough to fear it.
I mean, I like my penis circumcised. But if it wasn't, I would never get
the operation because I'd hate to have someone with a knife down there. No
matter how safe. Its a guy thing...
I don't know what I'd have done to my child... Probably circumcise him. Its
healthier, so they say.
Cashmere
Member
Posts: 58 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 18/3/2003 at 07:36 AM
There is almost no way you could get me to
approve circumcision. Okay, first off, you are cutting off a bit of the
body. If you have evolved to have it, don't you thnk it would be useful to
NOT cut it off? Nothing evolves without some purpose, and the outside of
the body is much more prone to adaptation that the inner organs. if the
human male did not need a foreskin it would have reduced in size until it
had disappeared completely. There has been plenty of time to do this. Now
that there are things such as pants made out of coarse materials, a
foreskin is actually a protectant against the irritants of fabrics, and
circumcised males are more likely to be irritated and form calluses as a
result of friction.
The issue of cleanlines is interesting as
well. You would be cleaner without a hand, and they are useful but not
required. If it was publicised that removal of hands at a very young age
without anesthetic was recommended for cleanliness, would you do that to
your child?
Also, in the event of an abnormal penis,
the foreskin is actually vital to penile reconstruction. With conditions
such as hyposdadias (sp) the foreskin is used to repair the urethra and
allow the penis to function normally. Without the forekin present the skin
needs to be removed from the shaft and results in quite noticeable
disfigurement.
____________________ "Truth is always on the move. It is always somewhere, but never in the
foreground, never on the surface."
-Franz Marc
Sticupus
Fanatic
Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 18/3/2003 at 10:00 AM
"I mean, I like my penis circumcised. But if it wasn't, I would never get
the operation because I'd hate to have someone with a knife down there. No
matter how safe. Its a guy thing..."
Why would you want to cut the penis of a defenseless baby? If you think
that you as an adult would fear that operation, which is far more severe
when done as an infant, then why it that ok to do that to a baby? Let me
explain the operation in detail as far as an infant goes. First an incision
is made next to the frenulum. Then the foreskin is skinned from the glans
or head of the penis. Yes, that’s right, skinned. The foreskin and the head
of the penis are held together by a membrane, and aren’t meant to be
separated. They are supposed to slowly separate overtime from infancy to in
some cases early puberty (about age 10 or more). Next the incision
continues around the glans, cutting under or on the corona, a large nerve
ending area. After that is finished the frenulum is gouged out, and that is
a very highly compacted area of nerves. All gone. This is usually preformed
without anesthesia, because I guess they think babies can’t feel pain.
Adult circumcision isn’t as bad due to the fact the glans has been
protected for years by the foreskin, and there is no skinning of the head
of the penis. However, the foreskin when cut off an adult and stretched out
is not just a little skin, but 15 square inches of skin, about the size of
a note card. It has twice the nerve endings and blood vessels of normal
skin. This is not to make youor other adult males who had no say in this
operation feel bad but to target this disturbing idea “I'm not sure that
letting the decision fall to the child is a good thing. For one, he'll be
old enough to fear it.” Why then would you want to subject anyone to that
treatment? Is it only because they as infants can’t directly complain, or
prevent it from happening themselves?
Circumcision should only be preformed on adults who request it as cosmetic
surgery. Why only cosmetic? Because it is just cosmetic, but more like
cutting your ears off for the looks.
“Its healthier, so they say [to circumcise].”
In what way? Foreskin makes a healthier penis. let me list the 12 KNOWN
functions of foreskin.
1.to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of
the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion thoughout life.
4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. to lubricate the glans.
6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous
receptors.
12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.
Starlight I know how you feel on the subject, but I have to approcach this
idea you
brought up before “to look like daddy”. To me this couldn’t be a more
bizarre idea. A male child will look like his father, this is obvious. Why
do the genitals have to resemble the father as well? This makes my skin
crawl. That excuse is like masochistic pedophilia in my opinion.
Oh well, more later. I’ll let that big chunk of information brew.
____________________ The OBOLISK is Divine.
dead-cell
Fanatic
Posts: 344 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 18/3/2003 at 06:22 PM
Speaking as a non-circumcised male I can safely say I have never had a
yeast or urinary track infection. Nor any other male I have met. Those two
types of infections are normaly found in femals. Thus why so many men
consider them-selves lucky not having to deal with thoughs problems. As I
understand male circumcision practices started some where in the middle
ages; as a meathod of hygean, and to surpress sexual urges. Freaquently
this was done in noble and royal houses. High ranking virgin women in
those times wore chasity belts to protect thier virginity, untill the
wedding night. By the way the History chanel has a show on the history of
sex.
____________________ co-worker: "Your gay!?"
myself: "Didn't you see my rainbow pin?"
co-worker: "I just thought you liked skettles."
-(yes, it actually happened to me)
Sticupus
Fanatic
Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 18/3/2003 at 07:58 PM
Personally I love my foreskin. If someone were to cut it off, I would
rather them take the rest with. Honestly I can't see my penis without it.
I'd rather be a smoothie if it were take from me.
____________________ The OBOLISK is Divine.
Anya
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 656 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 07:33 AM
The decision should be left to the person being circumcised.
Why? Since I think it's taking away a right from the child (well, adult
when they get to that stage); that child did NOT choose. Circumcision
should be okay as long as it's the adult choosing, not the parents forcing
it onto him or her when he/she was only a baby.
Dolorosa
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 856 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 01:47 PM
You know, when I was about six, I was attacked and nearly killed by a
foreskin...Just six mind you, the attack was sudden and brutal...and I was
in the hospital for about three days with heavy lacerations and some
internal bleeding, not to mention psychological trauma. Well,
anyhow...after that day I have looked upon the foreskin as an
enemy...something to be destroyed...
When I have a son, I'm going to take a band-saw to his little pecker
____________________ In the valley of the Goats, the Goat Fucker is King
Merry_Widow
Fanatic
Posts: 598 Registered: 24/8/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 01:59 PM
I think the biggest difference between male and female circumcision is the
fact that even if a male is circumcised, it is still possible for him to
enjoy sex. Once a female is circumcised, sex hurts, birthing literally
tears her apart, and it can be extremely difficult and painful to
urinate.
And I still believe one of the main reasons males are circumcised is not
for health issues, but religious ones.
____________________ Okay, dazzle me.
Sticupus
Fanatic
Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 02:13 PM
80% of boys were circumcised in the 1980's. Is 80% of the population Jewish
or Muslim? It isn't for religious reasons, In the United States, it's never
been.
____________________ The OBOLISK is Divine.
Merry_Widow
Fanatic
Posts: 598 Registered: 24/8/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 02:24 PM
It's in Christianity, too. I have asked people why they would make that
choice if not for Hygeine, and they replied with the fact that they were
xian, and it's in the bible. It IS done for religious reasons. I'm not
saying that is the only reason, just one that I think is more prevelant
than people think.
____________________ Okay, dazzle me.
Sticupus
Fanatic
Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 03:48 PM
Well this is a new christian ritual. I trust you that they are using that
as an excuse. But is that a good one? Cut the baby's penis for Jesus?
Stoning is also in the bible. Just because something is in a book, doesn't
mean we have to act it out, especially on children's genitalia.
____________________ The OBOLISK is Divine.
Sticupus
Fanatic
Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 04:14 PM
Besides... it's creepy.
____________________ The OBOLISK is Divine.
Ironboots
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 893 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 04:20 PM
Sticupus... if I had the choice, I would endure being circumcised as an
infant a million times over rather than be circumcised once as an adult.
Ignorance is bliss, and infants are blissfully ignorant.
Not that they don't feel pain, but they wouldn't fear the knife as it is
coming.
Dolorosa, I feel your pain...
____________________ Piggy's got the Conch!
Shade
Fanatic
Posts: 289 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 06:09 PM
I would most definately leave the choice up to my kid if I had one. The
health issue I can only see from the point of the female, hang on let me
explain before anyone get's weird ideas. The male forskin is nifty in terms
of keeping a penis long accustomed to having said foreskin safe from
external vectors of infection, but it's also a great place to store dead
skin cells and sweat and pocket lint. So from the female point of view,
it's nicer to have a penis that's less prone to contain alot of little
infectants just waiting to be delivered to tender mucous membranes via
internal injection. On the other hand that entire bias is based on my
opinion of the majority of the populace of america as literally unwashed
masses.
On my end, I am circumised and I kind of like it, I don't have anything to
base my opinion on other that the state of being circumcised. Personaly, I
wouldn't be that weirded out by letting a doctor go at me with a knife, but
I've let a piercist go at me with a needle as well as a doctor go at me
with a knife and an electrode, and I can still get it up after both
escapades so I'm a little jaded to the subject.
All in all, I think the choice should be left to the male and knowing more
about it (Thank Sticupus, That was both horrifying and informative) I would
definately want to leave it to the child to decide later. the procedure as
outlined sounds like the kind of thing that actually changes the way the
penis developes and I have to wonder what I missed because of my
circumcision.
____________________ It is only through the lack of sex that humanity derives the need for an
all encompassing blind love. And in that moment of extreme horniness with
no relief in sight, in that moment can be found the birth of religion.
-Me
Merry_Widow
Fanatic
Posts: 598 Registered: 24/8/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 06:23 PM
It's in the Old Testament, book of Genesis. Which is part of the bible.
Which xians read.
____________________ Okay, dazzle me.
Sticupus
Fanatic
Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 20/3/2003 at 08:05 PM
Merry_Widow: Yes yes, Abraham cut his penis with a shell as a sign of
brotherhood to the Israelites (I think a unique hair style could have done
the trick, but Abraham had a screw loose as well as many other biblical
figures did). It has been a trend ever since, but now for different
reasons. Stoning is in Leviticus, just a few books down. Is your t-shirt
made with mixed fibers, poly-cotton blend for example? Well in Leviticus,
that is an offense punishable by stoning.
And wasn't there something about abandonment of old Judaic law that
Christians are supposed to recognize?
Maybe they haven't been reading too carefully, or they consider listening
to sermons “reading”. I’ve seen that happen too much; they think it’s like
books on tape.
Shade: here is where the delicate issue lies. How do I convince a crowd who
couldn't make that decision not to take advantage of another incompetent
and weaker crowd and make that decision for them? It is a strong stance
that you are taking and I admire that you don't have self motivated biases
in your way (would I expect anything less from Shade?). However speaking to
the masses is another issue.
And for that dead skin comment, let me educate you (wow, I’m being cocky,
but I have ‘one’ and know more about this than you do... I‘m just being
honest, I‘m not trying to alpha male the Shade at all). That dead skin and
sebaceous secretion buildup is a vital part of the penis. The head or glans
of the penis doesn’t naturally have sebaceous glands. Only the specialized
skin under the prepuce or foreskin has them. There are sebaceous glands
there that are unlike any other in the body; sort of like breasts but much
smaller. This keeps the penis head nourished with oils and moisture, sort
of like the interaction between the inside of your mouth and your saliva
glands. If you take that away, it dries out..... I’ll explain
Karatinization later.
It also has another purpose; this secretion isn’t just a secretion. It's
called smegma. If it gets a chance to every build up- it’s a waxy white
substance that’s packed with anti-microbial agents (anti bacterial and anti
viral stuff) that keep the penis CLEAN and STERILE, and safe from
infection. Any buildup of body secretions can cause infection. That’s why
we use q-tips on our ears for example. And I have never heard of any
complaints of people wanting to cut off their ears to prevent having to
deal with the task of using a q-tip. Besides, a little ear wax keeps the
ear healthy and working well. We need it there, just like smegma on our
penis. Smegma also is a big source for pheromones from the male; some of
the most potent I might add. Oh and women have glands similar to smegma
glands too if you haven’t noticed.
Also studies show that circumcised men, on average, do not pay much
attention in the washing of their genitals as they really don’t have to.
Thus circumcised men are “dirtier” than intact men (on average) due to
that. A study done in the UK, where circumcision is preformed like in the
United States, showed that boys simply never washed their genitals while
showering. It is the unwashed masses, and I think it is DUE to
circumcision. I take my time washing, and if it is because I have to, I
consider that a blessing not a burden. Vaginas have the potential to be
dirtier than an intact penis, because an intact penis doesn’t go through a
process anywhere near that of menstruation. However, women are clean and I
haven't heard any complaints of a stinky dirty vagina epidemic in the
world. Everyone is clean and happy.
The lint getting into the penis under the foreskin, well that’s kind of
hard to for reasons of simple physics. The foreskin wraps around the penis
head and forms a pucker, like a sphincter at the end of the penis,
preventing from anything from getting in unless it is intentional
(intentional meaning retraction of the foreskin, or an erection that causes
the foreskin to contract, and that only usually happens during masturbation
or intercourse). This pucker effect is due to a little part of the foreskin
called the “ridged band“; it’s a tough but flexible ring of tissue packed
with nerves.
To reflect- Based on the logic stated before about lint getting into the
penis- women shouldn’t fear lint getting into their vaginas via an intact
penis, because they wouldn’t be able to stop lint from getting into their
vaginas anyway. That simply doesn’t make sense. It’s not like a
bellybutton.
Ironboots: Circumcision as an adult isn’t nearly as traumatizing, harmful,
and destructive to the male organ as when one is circumcised as an infant
(see above). The choice being made by an adult male, at age 18 to be
circumcised (because I guess they have some issues about it that are beyond
me) then he should have the right to do so: just as he can get a tummy
tuck, a nose job, and everything pierced and tattooed that he wants.
And why fear the immediate pain as an adult? The long term effects of
infant circumcision are far worse because they never end.