The Genital Mutilation Thread

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Unndunn

Male circumcision is a way of decreasing risk of infection, including HIV.

Funny, that. And here I always thought that practicing safer sex and not sharing needles was the generally accepted way of decreasing the risk of HIV infection.

And as far as bacterial infections underneath the scrotum go, I would think that a far kinder way to combat that would be EDUCATING the caregivers of male children (and adults, in cases where they need assistance with that sort of thing) on proper cleaning and drying procedures. That strikes me as a whole lot more responsible than just lopping it off.

Oh. In case you all can't tell - I am super SUPER opposed to circumcision. Female Genital Mutilation, also...but that really should go without saying.

[blackboot]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Funny, that. And here I always thought that practicing safer sex and not sharing needles was the generally accepted way of decreasing the risk of HIV infection.

And as far as bacterial infections underneath the scrotum go, I would think that a far kinder way to combat that would be EDUCATING the caregivers of male children (and adults, in cases where they need assistance with that sort of thing) on proper cleaning and drying procedures. That strikes me as a whole lot more responsible than just lopping it off.

Oh. In case you all can't tell - I am super SUPER opposed to circumcision. Female Genital Mutilation, also...but that really should go without saying.

I agree with you in all that you have written. I have very personal reasons for leaving genitalia in a natural state with the exception of a (very) valid medical condition. Even then, it can be a slipery slope having someone from the "medical profession" making decisions about anyone's bits. To *me* that also includes a parent(s).

*My* bottom line---"If it's not your body, It's not your choice."
*Female Genital Mutilation. NO.
*Ambiguous Genital Mutilation. NO.
*Male Genital Mutilation. NO.

[Heart]

Regarding genital mutilation as it relates to circumcision of boys and girls:

Why is it when something that is detrimental to women and girls is raised, there is always this, "yeah, but it happens to boys/men too!" kind of response? While the intentions may be fair-minded, the upshot is to minimize what happens to women and girls and refocus on injustices to men and boys. Unconscious as it may be, I think its a kind of denial of the horrific realities the patriarchy visits on women and girls.

I am Jewish and my son was circumcised almost 18 years ago. I'm not religious, it was more of a gut thing. Today, I most likely wouldn't do it. But to say that he was "mutilated" is way over-stating. My son is a handsome, active, powerful young man in the prime of his life. A woman his age who has been circumcised would most likely have lost a child during childbirth and/or have a devastating condition called fistula that caused her to leak body waste and be shunned by her community, and/or be dead from a serious infection or blood loss.

See this link for more info on fistula, and how to help: http://www.fistulafoundation.org/

[Toughy]

my posts from a different thread:

Human beings of any culture have every right and should vehemently stop the practice of mutilating girl's genitalia. Actually we have an OBLIGATION to stop this.

We also have an OBLIGATION to stop the sexual exploitation of children.....especially girls. The media in Western culture bears the greatest responsibility and obligation to do this.

and

I focus on girls and women for a reason. Yes, I am against snipping off part of a boy/man penis.......for any reason. I don't think that practice of Judaism (and taken up others), rises to the horrific consequences of mutilating a girl's clitoris and entrance to the vagina.

It is a red herring to bring up snipping off the foreskin and leaving the penis a functional pleasurable sexual organ. It does not relate in any way, shape or form, nor has any connection with rendering a girl/women unable to experience sexual pleasure.

edited to add: and that mutilation continues her role as the vessel for the next generation, while ending her ability to have any pleasure from the act of procreation.

[Liam]

To equate circumcision for males with genital mutilation for females, indicates a lack of knowledge, and I hope that people take this opportunity to educate themselves. Removal of the foreskin leaves an organ that is able to feel pleasure, and usually circumcision takes place when the male is an infant, and he has no memory, of this procedure. On the other hand, removal of a female's clitoris quite often takes place when she is an older child, she retains the memory of the procedure, and is robbed of her primary source of pleasurable sexual stimulation, not to mention the health issues which arise from this procedure. The repeated suturing of the vagina, and then the consequent breaking of those sutures is far more brutal than the quick cutting of the penis's foreskin, which happens only once. To equate the two, is to say a scrape on the elbow is the same as having one's arm amputated.

[blush]

Originally Posted by Liam

To equate circumcision for males with genital mutilation for females, indicates a lack of knowledge, and I hope that people take this opportunity to educate themselves. Removal of the foreskin leaves an organ that is able to feel pleasure, and usually circumcision takes place when the male is an infant, and he has no memory, of this procedure. On the other hand, removal of a female's clitoris quite often takes place when she is an older child, she retains the memory of the procedure, and is robbed of her primary source of pleasurable sexual stimulation, not to mention the health issues which arise from this procedure. The repeated suturing of the vagina, and then the consequent breaking of those sutures is far more brutal than the quick cutting of the penis's foreskin, which happens only once. To equate the two, is to say a scrape on the elbow is the same as having one's arm amputated.

No one is equating the two.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by blush

No one is equating the two.

Oh, but they are.

Blush - you directed this question to me:
"How is cutting off the foreskin NOT mutilation? It alters the penis permanently. It does not leave it in the natural state. The female version is much more globally damaging to females. I'm not arguing with you that that is true. Are we defining mutilation differently?"

I mentioned in a previous post that my own son is circumcised. So, according to your definition I have mutilated my son. Yes, we most definitely have different definitions of the word "mutilate."

Mr. Bent said this:
"There is a hierarchy of horrors, and FGM far outweighs - from both physical and cultural perspectives - male foreskin removal. But circumcision is mutilation, and it is relevant to talk about it here."

I think referring to male circumcision as mutilation does in fact minimize the horror of female circumcision. That is why I am comparing the two and hammering at this point. They are not the same thing, but in referring to both of them as mutilation, they are being equated.

Circumcision of both males and females is altering, but only that of females is mutilation.

Heart

[blush]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I focus on girls and women for a reason. Yes, I am against snipping off part of a boy/man penis.......for any reason. I don't think that practice of Judaism (and taken up others), rises to the horrific consequences of mutilating a girl's clitoris and entrance to the vagina.

It is a red herring to bring up snipping off the foreskin and leaving the penis a functional pleasurable sexual organ. It does not relate in any way, shape or form, nor has any connection with rendering a girl/women unable to experience sexual pleasure.

edited to add: and that mutilation continues her role as the vessel for the next generation, while ending her ability to have any pleasure from the act of procreation.

Thanks, Toughy.
I agree that one is much more damaging on many more levels.

My concern lies with altering(mutilating) an infant's or child's genitalia for seemingly social/religious reasons when they are too young to have agency in the matter.

[Semantics]

Originally Posted by Toughy

my posts from a different thread:

Human beings of any culture have every right and should vehemently stop the practice of mutilating girl's genitalia. Actually we have an OBLIGATION to stop this.

We also have an OBLIGATION to stop the sexual exploitation of children.....especially girls. The media in Western culture bears the greatest responsibility and obligation to do this.

and

I focus on girls and women for a reason. Yes, I am against snipping off part of a boy/man penis.......for any reason. I don't think that practice of Judaism (and taken up others), rises to the horrific consequences of mutilating a girl's clitoris and entrance to the vagina.

It is a red herring to bring up snipping off the foreskin and leaving the penis a functional pleasurable sexual organ. It does not relate in any way, shape or form, nor has any connection with rendering a girl/women unable to experience sexual pleasure.

edited to add: and that mutilation continues her role as the vessel for the next generation, while ending her ability to have any pleasure from the act of procreation.

I agree.

I hate it when people bring up principles like cultural relativism to explain why we shouldn't interfere with these practices.

All humans have basic, inalienable rights that should be protected. People shouldn’t be tortured and have their health put at risk, their genitals mutilated.

[blush]

No, Heart. My intention is not to a nefarious plot to undermine what happens to boys vs. what happens to girls. BOTH happen to very young children who have no say in the matter.

As a society, we find male circumcision socially acceptable, even healthier, yet there is very little evidence that this is true. The article about HIV infection suggested circumcision. Are the anaerobic bacteria present not destroyed to antibacterial soap? It seems less invasive to wash the foreskin than to cut it off.

I'm not interested in created a hierarchy debating which is a worse condition. Obviously, female circumcision is worse.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by blush

No, Heart. My intention is not to a nefarious plot to undermine what happens to boys vs. what happens to girls. BOTH happen to very young children who have no say in the matter.

As a society, we find male circumcision socially acceptable, even healthier, yet there is very little evidence that this is true. The article about HIV infection suggested circumcision. Are the anaerobic bacteria present not destroyed to antibacterial soap? It seems less invasive to wash the foreskin than to cut it off.

I'm not interested in created a hierarchy debating which is a worse condition. Obviously, female circumcision is worse.

Yes, obviously. There IS a hierarchy. One I am interested in as it relates to the very different purposes and outcomes of female vs male circumcision. Thus my objection to calling male circumcision "mutilation."

[blush]

Originally Posted by Heart

Yes, obviously. There IS a hierarchy. One I am interested in as it relates to the very different purposes and outcomes of female vs male circumcision. Thus my objection to calling male circumcision "mutilation."

Heart, we agree on the hierarchy. One is worse.

How is cutting off the foreskin NOT mutilation? It alters the penis permanently. It does not leave it in the natural state. The female version is much more globally damaging to females. I'm not arguing with you that that is true. Are we defining mutilation differently?

[Nat]

My intention in starting this thread was to discuss any/all genital mutilation whether common and accepted or not, whether it happens to boys or girls or intersex kids. (So it's not a red herring to discuss male circumcision in this thread).

I have known men who were very glad they were uncircumcised and I have known men who felt violated that they had been circumcised. I have also known circumcised guys that were fine with the fact they were circumcised and guys who wished they were circumcised. But the ones who are uncircumcised CAN go and get circumcised a lot easier than those who were circumcised, where as those who are circumcised aren't able to grow their foreskins back. What does it do to a guy's psyche that his parents were willing to chop off bit of his penis? Why aren't men who are upset about this taken seriously? - especially in places where female genital alteration is rare? Is it like a "suck it up and be a man" thing?

I don't think male circumcision is on par with female circumcision but I do feel that altering the genitals of babies is a violation. That's my own feeling and it's strongly held.

I am very against altering female genitalia and I'm glad my bits weren't screwed with. I think it's a horrible travesty and I want it stopped. I also think surgeries meant to re-create the hymen are pretty damn fucked up.

I'm very against altering intersex children's genitalia because I think doing so can have horrible circumstances for that kid. As blackboot said, only in extreme medical situations would I advocate surgical alteration of a child's genitalia and even then my focus would be on retaining whatever functionality possible for that kid. It would never be to shove them into the box labeled male or the box labeled female.

[blush]

Originally Posted by Nat

My intention in starting this thread was to discuss any/all genital mutilation whether common and accepted here in the US or not, whether it happens to boys or girls or intersex kids. (So it's not a red herring to discuss male circumcision in this thread).

I have known men who were very glad they were uncircumcised and I have known men who felt violated that they had been circumcised. I have also known circumcised guys that were fine with the fact they were circumcised and guys who wished they were circumcised.

I don't think male circumcision is on par with female circumcision but I do feel that altering the genitals of babies is a violation. That's my own feeling and it's strongly held.

I agree, Nat. And I would rather that this thread turned into a resource for information about genital mutilation instead of a debate about which is worse.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Heart

Regarding genital mutilation as it relates to circumcision of boys and girls:

Why is it when something that is detrimental to women and girls is raised, there is always this, "yeah, but it happens to boys/men too!" kind of response? While the intentions may be fair-minded, the upshot is to minimize what happens to women and girls and refocus on injustices to men and boys. Unconscious as it may be, I think its a kind of denial of the horrific realities the patriarchy visits on women and girls.

Yes to this.

I was teaching a poem by Atwood in which she outlined various global injustices perpetuated against women; one of the stanzas dealt with Female Genital Mutilation.

The very first response was from a young man shouting out, "Yeah, well, we get circumcised...what about THAT!?" which was met with head nods all around. The women were silent. I then explained what would happen to the penis if they experienced the same degree of mutilation that the girls undergo during FGM.


Here is my earlier post:

Female Genital Mutilation and Male Circumsion is not analogous--both in intent, cultural justifications, the physical procedure or the consequences. I am not proposing that male circumcision is without its issues or is immune from criticism. I just don't believe that the two procedures can be fairly compared.


FGM involves the cutting off of entire portions of the female anatomy. For boys, the removal of the foreskin is more about removing an “extra” piece of skin than removing a center of pleasure. Removing the clitoris, which occurs in many FGM rituals, is done to help ensure that girls do not derive any pleasure from their sexuality, thus encouraging them to remain pure. The male equivalent of FGM would be the removal of the tip of the penis up to and including the removal of the penis and scrotum.

I am not cool with the description of the *extra piece of skin" portion of the description; however, a clitoridectomy (and other parts that can be cut during FGM--the labia--as well as sewn up--vagina) just does not equate to the act of removing the foreskin of males.



Beyond the dramatic differences in the actual physical procedures between the two, the intent, justifications and ramifications are completely distinct from one another.


Cutting off a clitoris (and labia and sewing up her vagina in many cases) is meant to completely eradicate ANY sexual pleasure--it is used as method of control. There are NO health benefits and many women have lifelong medical conditions afterwards--not to mention an inability to enjoy sex.

Some may say that the roots of circumcision was to not have the boys masturbate as much. This is not the case now. There have been recent studies that show how circumcision does reduce the rate of penile cancer, HIV, herpes and HPV (in turn, which helps protect women who are infected with HPV by men).

If I had a son, I would consider circumcision due to these studies. I don't think that circumcision is a mutilation, and I have a hard time with both these subjects being cast under the same umbrella.

The only common thread that I can see between Female Genital Mutilation and Circumcision performed on baby boys is that they both are performed without consent.

*****************************

Blush,

If you are not setting up a hierarchy or even equating the two, then why would you question the level of horror that people have in regards to FGM over circumcision? Your question is phrased with the insinuation that there should be an equal amount of horror expressed towards circumcision as to FGM. It makes perfect sense to me that people would naturally be more horrified at FGM than circumcision.

[blush]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Blush,

If you are not setting up a hierarchy or even equating the two, then why would you question the level of horror that people have in regards to FGM over circumcision? Your question is phrased with the insinuation that there should be an equal amount of horror expressed towards circumcision as to FGM. It makes perfect sense to me that people would naturally be more horrified at FGM than circumcision.

You're right. Perhaps my phrasing was too strong. My intention was to open the conversation up, not shut it down. I also want to learn more about both issues.

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Funny, that. And here I always thought that practicing safer sex and not sharing needles was the generally accepted way of decreasing the risk of HIV infection.

And as far as bacterial infections underneath the scrotum (foreskin) go, I would think that a far kinder way to combat that would be EDUCATING the caregivers of male children (and adults, in cases where they need assistance with that sort of thing) on proper cleaning and drying procedures. That strikes me as a whole lot more responsible than just lopping it off.

I agree that most of the medical problems associated with intact foreskins could be eradicated through better education. Neither parents nor "health" educators in our schools have been properly educated in instructing uncircumcised boys. Cutting off the foreskin simply allows better access to the penis in order to keep it clean, which I think we all know is no guarantee it will, in fact, be kept clean. Removal of the foreskin does decrease sexual pleasure, and there have been studies into the affects of inflicting severe pain on infants, so there are emotional/psychological ramifications worthy of inquiry, as well.

Originally Posted by Heart

Regarding genital mutilation as it relates to circumcision of boys and girls:

Why is it when something that is detrimental to women and girls is raised, there is always this, "yeah, but it happens to boys/men too!" kind of response? While the intentions may be fair-minded, the upshot is to minimize what happens to women and girls and refocus on injustices to men and boys. Unconscious as it may be, I think its a kind of denial of the horrific realities the patriarchy visits on women and girls.

From the other thread, and here, I personally didn't get the impression that the comment was made from a "yeah, but it happens to boys/men, too" perspective, but rather that there are forms of genital mutilation that take place right here in our own backyard, without having to take the issue globally (which is not to say that we shouldn't).

Similarly, I don't understand why we can't have conversations about what happens to our male children without it becoming a conversation about the patriarchy and male favoritism. Why can't both conversations occur concurrently?

Nor do I think anyone, anywhere here, has equated male circumcision with the horrific practice of female circumcision and to continue to try to berate those who would like to discuss male circumcision on those grounds feels like a kind of backlash effort at shutting down that conversation. I'd like to read/hear what members here think regarding both subjects, particularly as the parent of male child.

There is a hierarchy of horrors, and FGM far outweighs - from both physical and cultural perspectives - male foreskin removal. But circumcision is mutilation, and it is relevant to talk about it here.

[Toughy]

I would agree that 'altering' is an appropriate term for male circumcision. I do not see it as mutilation.

I find it wholly lacking enough emphasis when talking about female genitalia and intersexed genitalia. Mutilation is a much more accurate term in my mind.

As far as health benefits for males (and those they have sex with).........education about personal hygiene is a much better method. Schools cannot teach this properly because of restrictions placed on them by idiots from the fundamentalist and other religious communities. Remember abstinence only and don't touch your pee-pee cuz you will get warts and other bad things will happen...........

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Unndunn

First of all, we're not talking about the scrotum at all.

When I posted I had just gotten home from a 14 hour long graveyard shift, so you will have to forgive my mistype. I am not stupid, I know we were talking about foreskins. In fact, ---I--- was talking about foreskins but mistyped.

How about in the future you read and understand the entire message instead of using one mistyped word as your basis for dismissal? It's pretty clear that I was talking about foreskins - otherwise I would not have said anything about circumcisions.

Originally Posted by blush

Are the anaerobic bacteria present not destroyed to antibacterial soap? It seems less invasive to wash the foreskin than to cut it off.

Boy oh boy, it's a good thing you weren't tired and accidentally typed some other bodypart instead of foreskin!

~~~

The argument that most male children who get circumcised do so when they are really really young and won't remember it as adults is laughable. By that logic we should be able to do all sorts of horrible things to babies - hey, they won't remember it right? Game on!

[SuperFemme]

I think as mothers we are pretty much forced/shamed into complying with doing the circumcision on our male babies in the hospital. It's not like the OB/GYN discusses it with you during pregnancy.

It's not like they even discuss it with you in the hospital. They wait until you are all worn out from giving birth and then they come in the room and shove a consent form in front of you and tell you to sign it. You are never encouraged not to circumcise or told that it is not medically necessary. Think about that. It's a cosmetic procedure being done on a little life that is hours old. Elective. One out of every 500 circumcisions results in a serious complication. About 4 out of 100 are either considered unsatisfactory or result in some sort of complication.

“Some children end up with adhesions and/or skin bridges which can impede hygiene and actually precipitate infections.” The most common complication is the removal of either too much or too little skin. This may not become apparent until years later. Many circumcised adults complain that too much skin was removed. This can result in painful erections and bowing or curvature of the penis. Other common results not always noticed until later include extensive scarring, skin tags, and bleeding of the circumcision scar.

Yet there is little to no consultation beforehand. So while I understand that male circumcision is nowhere near the same a FGM it is a serious issue and one that keeps getting swept under the rug.