Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Circumcision- Male and Female, Is It Good Or Bad



I wouldn’t want to date a man who was not circumcised. I saw one of those ant eaters and honestly don’t want that experience ever again. Imagine what happens to those ant eaters when the owner reaches elderly age. Ok, enough.

What really confused me is female circumcisions in one of those wild tribes.
The whole purpose of that is for women not to experience simple pleasures in this life. Absurd. Ridiculous. While men taking advantages of circumcision, another men are taking advantage of women circumcising them. Crazy world.

3 comments:

Mark Lyndon said...

Well there are plenty of men in some countries who won't date women who haven't been cut. If you go to countries like Egypt and Malaysia where it's performed by surgeons, you'll find they use the same reasons there to justify doing it that are used in the US to justify cutting off parts of boys' genitals.

Are you aware of how non-religious male circumcision became popular? Basically, 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tubercolosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link to see what physicians were saying in medical journals at the time:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words

150 years later, people seem to think it's normal for part of the male penis to be missing. If we'd gotten used to women having their inner labia removed (as they do in some countries), you'd be saying "Imagine what happens to those anchovies when the owner reaches elderly age".

Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? It was never anywhere near as popular as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until the 1950's. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield covered clitoridectomy till 1977.

One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006).
"The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA"

What "advantages" are there for a man to have the most sensitive part of his penis cut off? (it's not just there to protect the glans).

Fortunately, the practice seems to be dying out.

drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 3% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

Anonymous said...

How is male circumcision all that different than female circumcision??? Sure, the gender of the genital owner is different but culturally, isn't it the same? In the US you have parents who think for religious or cultural reasons the foreskin should be removed. Some think it's cleaner because it's too hard to clean (it's not, soap and water are easy to come by). Then you have those making comments like "anteater" and the negative connotations that follow.

Move on to female circumcision in Africa. They circumcise for both cultural and religious reasons. They think an un-circumcised girl is dirty and won't be marriage material (I don't know of the slang equal to anteater for this case but I'm sure they have a slang term in their culture).

Both groups of people trying to justify circumcising their people have their reasons. In Africa they think a cut woman will think about sex less and be less likely to be stray. In the US, non-religious circ was brought about because they thought it made boys masturbate less. Both groups of parents think sex is bad and don't want their kids to enjoy pleasure.

What I think is just stop cutting innocent children! Any parent who thinks cutting off a healthy body part on any child is insane. It's a human rights violation any way you look at it.
For those such as yourself who find foreskin a nasty turn-ff, I can't comment on that. That is your prerogative. Whatever floats your boat. There are men in Africa who find intact female genitals ugly too. Why not leave things well enough alone and let the child decide when he or she is old enough if they want their genitals cut? I'm guessing most would not but at least they'd have their say.

So my vote is both male and female circumcision are bad unless the person is old enough to give their consent for yea or nay.

Hugh7 said...

"I saw one of those ant eaters and honestly don’t want that experience ever again."

You realise that is what every male baby in the world is born with, and what three men out of every four grow up with? Three women out of every four in the world don't give it a second thought. Only in the US are babies routinely strapped down (often without anaesthetic) and the most sensitive part of their genitals cut off, for no good reason at all. Conformity, mainly (with their fathers, who were cut to conform with their fathers...).

And what did you think it should look like? A fireman's helmet? How is that so much more attractive than an anteater? (When did you last see an anteater, anyway?)

"Imagine what happens to those ant eaters when the owner reaches elderly age. Ok, enough."

What do you imagine happens? Nothing, actually. Old people need washing, just like young people.

And since you compare it with female genital cutting, how are they so different? As human rights abuses, there's nothing to choose between them.