Genital Mutilation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-09-2010, 04:17 PM
RE: Genital Mutilation
In most instances where male genital mutilation may be required it could actually be resolved by simply (not simple! Make sure your doctor is a good doctor D: ) removing a couple of millimeters from the tip.

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2010, 07:14 PM
RE: Genital Mutilation
(28-09-2010 04:17 PM)Cetaceaphile Wrote:  In most instances where male genital mutilation may be required it could actually be resolved by simply (not simple! Make sure your doctor is a good doctor D: ) removing a couple of millimeters from the tip.

Unfortunately (or not - I actually prefer being circumcised) you're wrong there. Most cases, as mentioned before, involve the removal of most of the foreskin to solve the most common problem. You are correct though, that complete removal is unnescessary. What is left behind by a good surgeon is what is called a "hood". Its a small amount of foreskin left covering the bottom ridge of the glans. The majority of the glans is left exposed, but the small hood serves to protect the glans from some desensitization (this is the biggest complaint by men circumcised later in life). If done right, sex is just as enjoyable, and the recurrence of painful infections is virtually eliminated.
Not trying to be confrontational, but I do know something about it. I dare say, more than the average bear.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2010, 04:49 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2010 04:59 AM by Norseman.)
RE: Genital Mutilation
In Norway the genital mutilation of women is punishable with 4-8 years in prison, depending on how severe the consequences are (medical complications etc). Genital mutilation of boys/men , I am sad to say, are still legal.
The Norwegian doctors union had this to say on the subject when it was debated in 2002: (my translation)
Det er vist at omskjæring av nyfødte kan ha langvarige negative effekter som stress, hypersensitivitet overfor smerter senere i livet og negativ mor-barn-relasjon, og det bør derfor ikke forekomme
"It has been shown that the circumcision of newborn males can have long term negative effects such as stress, hypersensitivity to pain later in life and negative mother-child-relations, and it should therefore never occur."

I was permanently vaccinated from ever changing sides in this debate when the largest radio station in Norway aired a story from some location in Africa (don´remember where, It´s been years).
The reporter was standing outside a tent where a circumcision was being performed (he was not allowed inside) and we could here everything going on inside. The screams of the child and it´s desperate pleads for mercy will never leave my mind. I did not understand the language, but I really did not need to. I had to pull my car over to the side of the road, because all the blood had drained from my head. Anyone who can do such a thing to a child, or allow it to be done, is in my mind less than human.

If you can stomach it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAGNnqyNidY

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2010, 07:00 AM
RE: Genital Mutilation
Hey, ThinkingNorseman.

This is a total digression, but I just wanted to thank you. I've never seen a sentence in Norwegian before. Cool.

I'm relatively certain that I have zero interest in watching that video, but I was uncertain about something. Is it of a female or of a male circumcision?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2010, 07:22 AM
 
RE: Genital Mutilation
I watched the video and it was of male circumcision -- a newborn baby. What was clear from watching it was good that the baby suffered pain -- considerable pain -- was the procedure was carried out. This is just not acceptable in our modern society and cannot be justified, in my view by anybody's philosophy or religion. Even if a religion requires circumcision, the least that can be done is to anaesthetise the person so they do not feel pain while surgery is carried out.

That said, I cannot see the slightest justification in these modern times for the removal of any part of the body that is perfectly healthy. We do not in any longer need to identify people of part of a particular religion -- in fact in many parts of the world it would not really do that as quite a large proportion of people in the United States are circumcised whether they're Jewish or not. This is just the procedure that should not be done without medical requirement.

Of course, it is medically necessary, and it is done with anaesthesia, then it's not a problem really. I was done a long time ago, in 1960, and I've not had the slightest problem since.

I wonder how long it will be before this cruel treatment newborn babies is made illegal; at least illegal to be done without anaesthesia.
Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2010, 11:08 AM
RE: Genital Mutilation
Hmmm... In the case of male circumcision, I think we need to separate the emotion of empathising with pain from surgery without pain control and a relatively simple medical procedure. In the west, there are no screaming babies because there is no anisthetic. Sure, there's a debate about if it's a worthwhile procedure or not, but it's not a debate about barbaric pain infliction. If a region has no access to proper pain control then ALL of the sugical procedures carried out in that region will cause intense pain. It seems to me, however, that this is the case in most places where female circumcisions are caried out. But on top of a genral lack of pain control, there is no medical basis for the procedure and it causes pain for the rest of the woman's life as well as other serious medical problems.

So for me, male circumcision seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other, but female circumcision, which, frankly, should be called female genital mutilation, is a procedure that only serves to support a social construct. There is zero medical need for it and no medical argument in support of it.

That being said, being a firm believer in socially constructed reality, the construct seems to have a great deal of power in those regions. Does anyone know (outside of the seemingly obvious patriarchal control mechanism) why FMGs are done?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2010, 02:51 PM
RE: Genital Mutilation
(29-09-2010 11:08 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Does anyone know (outside of the seemingly obvious patriarchal control mechanism) why FMGs are done?

This was pretty much my question exactly. While I understand that FGM is done to control the sexual activity of females, I don't know what the religious reasons are. All that I know is that the Judeo-Christian faiths don't perform female genital mutilation, so it must be a strictly Islamic thing? I really need to learn more about all these religious differences Undecided

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2010, 02:59 PM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2010 03:18 PM by Norseman.)
RE: Genital Mutilation
(29-09-2010 07:00 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, ThinkingNorseman.

This is a total digression, but I just wanted to thank you. I've never seen a sentence in Norwegian before. Cool.

I'm relatively certain that I have zero interest in watching that video, but I was uncertain about something. Is it of a female or of a male circumcision?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

Oops! that Norwegian bit was not supposed to be there! I just put it there for me to look at while I translated so I did not forget anything! Blush

The video shows the circumcision of a newborn baby boy, done in the way that is common practice in the west today.
(29-09-2010 11:08 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hmmm... In the case of male circumcision, I think we need to separate the emotion of empathising with pain from surgery without pain control and a relatively simple medical procedure. In the west, there are no screaming babies because there is no anisthetic. Sure, there's a debate about if it's a worthwhile procedure or not, but it's not a debate about barbaric pain infliction. If a region has no access to proper pain control then ALL of the sugical procedures carried out in that region will cause intense pain. It seems to me, however, that this is the case in most places where female circumcisions are caried out. But on top of a genral lack of pain control, there is no medical basis for the procedure and it causes pain for the rest of the woman's life as well as other serious medical problems.

So for me, male circumcision seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other, but female circumcision, which, frankly, should be called female genital mutilation, is a procedure that only serves to support a social construct. There is zero medical need for it and no medical argument in support of it.

That being said, being a firm believer in socially constructed reality, the construct seems to have a great deal of power in those regions. Does anyone know (outside of the seemingly obvious patriarchal control mechanism) why FMGs are done?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I totally agree with you that it shoul be called female genital mutilation. But it should also be called genital mutilation when done to a boy. In the parts of the world where female genital mutilation is carried out you will find the same kind of half-ass arguments defending FGM as people in the western world use to defend MGM.
The following is from an interview with Dr. Dean Edell and it mentions this point at about 07:00. I recommend watching the whole video, it´s very educational.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7u-r20G3Is

When it comes to your point about anesthetics, I am sad to inform you that you are wrong. The babies are usually not anesthetized. This is in part because the anesthesia that is normally used can´t e used on babies, and the ones that can, don´t work so well. In part it is also because people have believed up until fairly recently that babies do not feel pain the same way the rest of us do and that they in any case did not become traumatized by the experience. This has of course turned out to be false.
The following is from a 2004 TV documentary on the subject. It is an absolute must see!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWyt9jLELsY

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2010, 01:22 AM
RE: Genital Mutilation
(29-09-2010 04:49 AM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  Anyone who can do such a thing to a child, or allow it to be done, is in my mind less than human.

I agree with you, totally. There are a lot of huge cockroaches posing as humans, aren't there?

I won't watch the video because I have a weak stomach for that sort of thing. I feel sickened enough just reading your post about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2010, 08:10 AM
RE: Genital Mutilation
(28-09-2010 07:14 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Not trying to be confrontational, but I do know something about it. I dare say, more than the average bear.

I actually became a victim of genital mutilation when I was 11 due to non-medical reasons (seriously though, I don't want to go into the details of how it happened again... Lets just say that my parents are mental) and I did "start early" with masturbation. I have a rather clear memory of sexual pleasure with and without a foreskin and I can say that it is much different. I have also been experiencing a steady desensitization in the 5 years since the end of puberty.

Still from what I read around the experience is much different from person to person. I know some people in America who believed that desensitization was normal, even some who didn't know what a foreskin was (and a few of them were in their middle ages too) I even have a friend who was left with an inability to be sexually stimulated because of circumcision.

I also heard that circumcision during early puberty is a very bad idea and can cause even more problems than birth circumcision and adult circumcision combined.

I know for me it caused a massive drop in self esteem that seriously interfered with my school life, made me very shy, and it also caused me to have a very zig zagging libido and some late teen hormonal problems. And above mentioned decreasing sensitivity I have had problems with injuries caused by my clothing for most of my life now.

Sorry if this is too much information, but it's just my story.

[Image: sigone_zps207cf92c.png]

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015
Live long and prosper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: