why not some modified female circumcision

Why don't women cut part of their labia? It's acceptable and generally recommended for guys to cut the foreskin because it's cleaner. Can't the same argument be applied for women? Other than tradition, why would this be any different?

Personally, I don't advocate any of them. Unless it's a health hazard I say leave it the way you're born. However, I would like for DU men and women, who advocate this for little boys explain why shouldn't we do it to little girls? Both would be done under the same circumstances, in hospitals, by doctors.

I will check back in a hour or two

I agree with you 100% but it sure brings out the emotions in people.

genital mutilation is wrong whether practiced on boys or girls.

I don't even know how you could think otherwise.

Mutilation -- an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part (emphasis mine).
Circumcision -- The surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis.

As you can see using these basic definitions, circumcision is neither an injury nor deprivation of an important body part; therefore, it is not genital mutilation.

Edit: punctuation.

if a doctor removed part of her labia? Nothing else. No need to answer, we know the answer.

removes a part of her labia. Read Soteric's posts to you.

I did.

just by thinking about having orgasms...

why not?

I'm pretty neutral on the idea, but when you say, "Unless it's a health hazard I say leave it the way you're born", does that apply to tatoo's, piercings and other unneccesary things we do to ourselves that in no way inhances our health in the name of tradition or vanity or acceptance or what have you?

Again, I'm kinda neutral on the topic. I'll think about it when I have children and my wife and I broach the subject. Yet it seems that what you said would annoy or even offend the tatooed and/or pierced among us...

It appears like a valid analogy and I'm sure I'll get my mental bubble quickly burst quickly... DU has a habit of doing that to me :)


edited for clarity

We don't give children tattoos or body piercings.

Those who say it's a health risk ignore a couple of things: Most cultures in the world DON'T circumcise.

And we don't do any other form of preemptive surgery to infants. Don't remove adenoids, the appendix, the tonsils, nothing.

Just the foreskin.

O-kay. Point countered. And quite deftly. Adults have the choice to mutilate their bodies while infants don't.

Yet, I wonder... would the emotion be as pronounced if we as parents (or even a few) decided to give a newborn a tatoo?

I'm just in one of those moods tonight. I'm not trying to piss anyone off.

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

Grrrr. That makes me angry. All I can picture in my mind is earring snagging on Mama's sweater equaling one really hurt, angry baby girl.

My ex-wife had my daugher's ears pierced just before her first birthday. Just before our divorce, actually.

read my post again and see what I was talking about.

is not a deformity or a birth defect.

It doesn't need fixing.

most.sensible.post.ever

:eyes: As I posted in the other thread, I'm opposed to circucision. I think it's absurd.

Some cultures advocate and practice clitoridectomy which is in no way comparable to circumcision. They remove the clitoris and often sew closed the vagina so when a woman has sex then a man has to use a knife to open the vagina. I guess it's one way to ensure that the young bride doesn't look outside the marriage for sex since sex is so incredibly painful for her. This in no way compares to circumcision.

I mean, it bothers me when women (or men) talk about a men in his natural state being gross or something. It's kind of offensive. If he has medical or religious reasons for being circumsized (or it was his or his parent's preference), those that are circumsized are fine and dandy too, but their all pretty nice and useful either way. It's just an extra step in the shower and we all need to have appropriate hygeine when being intimate with someone. Anyone sleeping with a man who gets all uptight about a foreskin isn't going to be much fun in the sack for him anyway.

Obviously, I'd like all my female parts kept as the are. :scared:

he should say that she should cut her skin off, becuase it's not that clean. I wonder how she'd feel.

No one would want te most personal of their parts picked at or critiqued. I can't imagine any educated women who is comfortable with her own sexual self doing that to a man. It's pretty mean.

On the other hand, I used to have people I barely knew come up to me when I was quite young (like 15 or 16) and ask me if I had a "boob job" just because of how I looked. Many women (on the big or on the small side chest wise) have had to deal with some dude we hardly knew critiquing or commenting on our personal parts and that's harder to hide.

of female circumcision is a complete loss of sensation in the clitoris resulting in the inability to enjoy and culminate a sexual interaction. The tissues are much smaller and closer to nerve endings in female anatomy than they are in comparable male anatomy.

Many cultures which practice ritual female circumcision do not do so for reasons of religion (The Koran does not demand or even suggest the practice), they do so for the purpose of keeping women subjugated.

In western societies and cultures sacrificing sexual gratification for the sake of some potential cleanliness is not regarded as a boon. And subjugating women by depriving them of natural urges and satisfactions is considered an horrific act.

I never said cut the clitoris off. The keyword is modified circumcison, just the labia. Of course they'd a risk of infection or the doctor making a mistake, just as little boys.

If you have a competent doctor or mohel, he or she can perform this very simple pseudo-surgical procedure with ease. You have a far greater chance of infection or disease being uncircumcised than circumcised.

Edit: spelling, typos.

risk is different from getting one. By saying slim to none you actually agreed with me.

Simple logic would tell you that every man has a chance of getting a penile disease or infection. Simple research would tell you that this risk can be lessened by circumcision.

Edit: grammar.

if you take care of them they will not. Same with the penis. Hygiene is your friend.

It's not the same neat little procedure on a female as it is on a male. It carries too great a risk of the loss of sensation.

don't compare the procedure done in Sudan by witches with sharp stones. Doctors can attach hands and nerves these days. I think that they can cut labia just as well as they cut the foreskin.
Plus the purpose in those countries is to remove the CLITORIS too. Very, very different.

between circumcision and clitoridectomy. And I've made no comparisons or even references to witches with sharp stones. Pick up a copy of any good anatomical reference work and read.

...but I'm not a witch, and I didn't use a sharp stone.

A 11 year-old boy came into one of our field hospitals with an occluded foreskin. Sealed up tight. I ended up doing the surgery.

right?

...I mean, it's not like a story that you just start-off, outa the blue...

well, I'll say it again in another thread.

I'm not speaking with regard to clitorodectomy. I speaking with regard to female circumcision. The tissue is very small and possessed of a great many nerve endings. Much like the problem with removing my badly impacted wisdom teeth from my unusually small jaw, the procedure is fraught with potential danger. As it is, I've no sensation whatsoever in a small portion of my jaw. Most responsible physicians are not interested in risking this same affect on infant females for the sake of some limited benefit to cleanliness.

I would argue that men's skin is smaller.

By the way, I had the same problem with the teeth but I said IF they impact I'll take them out. They're rooooooooooooted deep in my jaw. The small chance of not feeling anything scared me to death.

Women are not smaller, ill-formed versions of men. The physiological differences are significant.

women.

just say it's different and it's settled. On the male infection: what happens if a woman doesn't practice hygiene down there?

Douching actually harms women and creates more infections. All it really needs is a simple washcloth and some water to clean away anything. You can't douche the inside of the vagina.

just like guys are supposesd to do with their foreskin. That's all its' needed to avoid infections for guys. My point was that if women don't wash they get infections too. They wash and still get them.

or infections are brought upon them by other guys. It's not an issue with washing.

now THAT deserves an echo...

wasn't talking about what is widely known as female circumcision. He's talking about something comparable to male circumcision - the removal of part of the outer labia. Actually, I think a removal of one third of the clitoris would be more comparable.

The fact is, we would oppose it all the way if it were done to girls here.

See my post above.

Seriously though...I agonized over the thought of circumcision when I was pregnant, but then I had a girl so luckily I didn't have to personally deal with making any decision on that topic.

My original thought on the subject was that if I had a boy, I wasn't going to go through with it because I don't see the point. It was my husband who disagreed with me and his reason was that growing up sucks enough, but to be teased and harassed in the locker room because your penis looks different would be pure hell for any boy to go through. He was pretty adamant about it and considering the fact that I don't have a penis and have never experienced being a boy in a locker room before, I took him at his word that it would indeed be pure hell.

But once again, on the flip side, there's something very instinctual about not wanting people to slice any part of your newborn baby...go figure.

I always thought women did that for themselves :).

(first let me say, that this argument is not directed at those who feel circumcision is a religious rite. I won't get into that discussion. This is only for people who do it for cosmetic reasons, or who *think* it prevents problems)


I worked in the urology department of a major teaching hospital for 10 years, and most doctors agree. Surveys of medical associations, pediatric associations, etc all say it is unnecessary. The US is the only country the routinely does it for other than religious reasons. within 20 years, the majority of boys here will be UNcircumcized, since more and more people are open to learning about it, rather than the old "I want him to look like daddy" argument.


There is NO GOOD REASON for routine circumcision. Only if the child is born with or develops a problem, should it be considered, and those times are very rare. In fact, complications from circumcision are more common than actual medical reasons to have them.


Uncirc'd men who practice good hygeine have no more problems than circ'd men being "prepared" for sex. Some women have a socially ingrained repulsion to it, or they have had a bad experience with someone and then assume the circ was the problem.


The fact of the matter is that circumcision removes MILLIONS of nerve cells and reduces the sensation for a man. "So what? He can still have an orgasm. I never heard a man complain." Well, why don't we remove half of women's clitorises? So what if we have less sensation? Shouldn't we be happy with whatever we get?" That argument INFURIATES me!


If I ever have a son, he will grow up to have every bit of sensation during sex that mother nature intended. Who am I to judge whether or not he'll ever miss it?


Message to future parents of sons out there: PLEASE just investigate it on your own. DON'T make your decision based on what you think is a societal norm, or being afraid he'll be teased in the locker room.


I have some good links I can provide, but I am at work (and no longer in medical research), so I can't really do the search I need to do to pull them up. I'll edit them in later if anyone is interested.



edited to add:

BTW, the reason that non-religious circumcision increased in frequency in the US was more due to the Puritanical origins of our country than anything else. Back in the day, doctors attributed many disorders to the ghastly act of masturbation. Circumcision was thought to reduce the urge to masturbate, and was recommended as a preventive measure to mental illness, blindness, etc.

when you pry it from my cold, dead hands (I guess).

Fuck circumcision.

-C