Female Circumcision or Cosmetic Surgery

[tenni]

I am reposting a post that was put on the Religious (male) Circumcision thread because I think that it is its own topic deserving its own thread.

To post it in the religious (male) circumcision thread is to muddy the water and distract from each topic.

The following is not my words.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/we.../Defending-FGM (http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/8323256/Defending-FGM)

I have a reason for posting that link... and it has to do with 3 paragraphs within it

In December 2012, this practice - now condemned as Female Genital Mutilation - came under an official ban by a UN Resolution, at the same time that the Hastings Centre Report, a leading biotethics journal, published an advisory statement dispelling many of the popular myths about female genital surgeries. Yet, in recent years, all over the internet and in Western women's magazines I see glossy advertisements of white women who have undergone what is now popularised as Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery (FGCS).

Doctors, including gynecologists with no surgery background, can charge thousands of dollars for procedures very similar to what I underwent and which the World Health Organisation (WHO) classifies as Type II Mutilation. I do find this puzzling. African women have been berated for over thirty years now for "mutilating" our own and our daughters' genitals. Medical practitioners are prohibited from performing these surgeries under clinical environments, even when requested by adult African women. But, white Australian girls as young as 14 and 11 can obtain "labiaplasty" underwritten by the National Health Service in local hospitals?

According to WHO, "Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons". So, how can Western public health officials, global health institutions and feminist organisations maintain a straight face in condemning African female genital surgeries as FGM, yet turn a blind eye and even issue guidelines for the performance of very similar and sometimes more invasive procedures on Western (mostly white) women, under the guise of cosmetic surgery?


its mutilation when people are opposed to it, its cosmetic / labiaplasty when its requested......LDD

[tenni]

Interestingly, the person who originally posted the above is not interested in the topic. This topic is as uncomfortable to explore as male circumcision.

There are others including Germaine Greer who have spoken about the similarities and differences between Female genital mutilation (FGM) compared to Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery (FGCS).

http://theconversation.edu.au/female-genital-cosmetic-surgery-a-labial-obsession-9119

“On last night’s Q&A (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3570412.htm), feminist campaigner Germaine Greer suggested a comparison between practices of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Africa and female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) in Western nations.

To make her point, Greer cited labiaplasty (where the labia minora are surgically reduced) and clitoral reduction of newborn girls in the medical management of “ambiguous genitalia”.

Greer is right: one central reason in the West for surgical intervention in babies’ genitals is to ensure gender conformity of intersexed genitalia.”...........

Of course there are differences between female genital mutilation and female genital cosmetic surgery, the most striking of which is the conditions under which they are performed. Common to FGM is the use of non-sterile instruments in unhygienic conditions, whereas FGCS is typically “medicalised”, carried out in professional surgical environments like plastic/cosmetic surgeons’ clinics.

People in the West who have never been exposed to genital mutilation in their own cultures tend to think of genital cosmetic surgery as a singular thing – that is, as clitoral excision and the sewing together of the lips of the vulva to leave a small hole for menstruation and urinary flow, which is then painfully reopened for childbirth and stitched back together afterwards.

In fact, FGM, as it is defined by the World Health Organization, covers a range of interventions, from infibulation (the sewing up of the lips), removal of the clitoris and labia minora and/or majora, removal of the labia minora only, and removal of the clitoral hood to piercing, pricking, scraping, incising and cauterisation.

Just like FGM, FGCS is also a variety of procedures, from vaginal tightening and plumping up or syphoning fat from the outer labial lips, to cutting off the inner lips...........

Why then, even if women are consenting to it, is FGCS legally defensible?

Health practitioners say it may be therapeutic. If a patient can demonstrate that she’s suffering from her condition (for example, if the size of her labia are causing her acute embarrassment or physical discomfort), then surgical removal is a therapeutic option.......

the majority of women seeking labiaplasty are mainly worried about the appearance of their genitals, we might conclude that cultural standards of appropriate femininity are increasing pressure on women to conform, especially now that the public gaze appears to have reached the genital area – it’s not just confined to small breasts, flabby stomachs and ageing faces anymore.......

In other words, the diagnosis of labial hypertrophy is a slippery term that was once used primarily to promote the idea of a fundamental difference between blacks and whites in the service of racist notions of white superiority (all white women were deemed to have small labia minora, which we know now to be factually incorrect).

...... our own cultural assumptions may be influencing how we value different forms of body modification."

[hasty1]

At the risk of starting something, and as no one else has bitten yet, for me female and male circumcision performed on infants is simply a matter of consent. There is nothing wrong with the human body, it all works as it's supposed to and outside interference with the appearance of genitals for the sake of it, whether it be for religious or cultural reasons, is wrong. Let's be clear here, I mean where there is nothing wrong that requires 'fixing' by having the procedure. Female and male circumcision are dramatically different in intent, as are female circumcision and adult cosmetic surgery on their genitals ( and let's face it some men also have procedures for the same reasons) But it all comes back to consent, an infant having an irreversible procedure performed on them cannot give their consent and will live with the result for the rest of their lives. What a person chooses to do with their body as an adult, and some people do some pretty extreme things, is up to them.

[is this it]

It is all but laughable at Tenni's attempt to paint a few people here into his dirty little corner. If you two bite the bait, then you truly are fools.

[chicagom]

nutme is back......damn!

[hasty1]

Apologies, I'm new here.

[Gearbox]

I have to echo Hasty's 'consent & health reasons' being the major factor. Adults can be as silly or sensible as they like with their bods, and as long as they have the cash and ability to come accross as 'sane' they can do what the Hell they want to themselves (via a surgeon).It's those who are NOT adult, consenting or able to grasp the effects of non-medicaly required surgical procedures that need protecting (Such as infants/minors). I'm shocked that 14yo girls can get cosmetic surgery on their vaginas in Australia. The article doesn't mention any reasons given for that, but I'd love to hear/read them.It doesn't say why adult African women are refused vaginal cosmetic surgery either. That seems unfair to me.But as for mutilation V's cosmetic surgery, they are the same thing IMO. You mutilate what is natural to reform it into something else. A marble statue is a mutilated chunk of marble. Rubble is a mutilated marble statue etc etc. I go to a barber to get my hair mutilated.lol It's just a word!

[darkeyes]

Apologies, I'm new here.
Don't apologise Hasty hun... seems 2 me wot u said makes good sense.. consent is all when faffing with peeps bodily bits and remoulding them.. consent of the person whose bodily bits r 2 b remoulded... except when there is a good and pressing medical, mental or physical need... but more than just consent.. consent with no undue pressure from outside...

..and Gear, girls of 14 and even younger can and do get cosmetic surgery of many different kinds (including on their genitals).. as indeed can boys... although there is, certainly on the NHS, supposed to be a clinically accepted reason for it, and fashion or desire is not accepted as sufficient reason for treatment free of charge. Indeed, neither is it recognised as a reason for adults to be provided with cosmetic surgery on the NHS free of charge. It can be undertaken for adults by the National Health Service without a clinical reason and by private providers but a fee is payable. Under 18s can also receive cosmetic surgery for other than clinical reasons if parents agree. Different NHS Trusts have different age limits, and one at least will not undertake cosmetic surgery on any young person under the age of 21 even although the age of majority is 18 unless there are good sound clinical reasons for it to be done.

Regarding Female Genital Mutilation, this is illegal in the UK for anyone, but any person, irrespective of gender and ethnic origin who qualifies for NHS treatment for clinically approved cosmetic surgery will be so treated free of charge by whichever NHS trust performs the surgery subject to their own or in the case of the young, parental consent. In respect of cosmetic surgery for other than recognised medical conditions and where a fee is payable, subject to age limits of the particular NHS Trust and within the law, surgery is conditional on receipt of consent by both parents or guardians where this is applicable. This is also expected to be the case in respect of private providers. Disputes do occur between parents and sometimes between parent or parents and child, but counselling is provided to try and resolve those, and occasionally, if rarely, it is the courts who are the final arbiter.

I have tried as best I can, Gear, to outline how things are in the UK and not made judgements except in the case of Hasty1's post with which in general I agree.. I do have opinions however and will most likely return to those at another time.:)

[Gearbox]

Come on now Fran! We're in Sydney Austalia, I'm your 14yo daughter and I want my vadge all prettied up by Dr Lovegood.........express the stress.LOL

[darkeyes]

Come on now Fran! We're in Sydney Austalia, I'm your 14yo daughter and I want my vadge all prettied up by Dr Lovegood.........express the stress.LOL
Gimme time, luffly man...:cutelaugh:kiss:

[Gearbox]

I was going to do some 'research' into it, but NO WAY am I going to type the words "14 year old girls" & "vaginal" into a browser!! Jezuz Lord, I'd be on a list.lol

[darkeyes]

I was going to do some 'research' into it, but NO WAY am I going to type the words "14 year old girls" & "vaginal" into a browser!! Jezuz Lord, I'd be on a list.lol
Big Nell! Wy worry bout summat that already is?:cutelaugh

[goldenfinger]

On last night. about 50 min

http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/watchonline/514/Clear-Cut

[Gearbox]

Damn! Can't watch that vid on the Wii. Thanks though.

[Annika L]

There is nothing wrong with the human body, it all works as it's supposed to and outside interference with the appearance of genitals for the sake of it, whether it be for religious or cultural reasons, is wrong.

Hi Hasty, and welcome to the site!

I do question...if actions taken for cultural and religious reasons are "wrong", then by what ethical framework do you approach the concepts of "right" and "wrong"? Keep in mind that many people (I'm not one of them, but I would guess that I'm talking about well over half the world's population here) use *almost exclusively* either a cultural or religious ethical framework for making decisions. So by their ethics, they'll call you wrong (or mistaken or misguided or sinner or infidel or whatnot), and they'll be no more wrong than you are...unless, of course, their god really does exist and advocates their beliefs, in which case they'll be a *lot* less wrong than you.

Right and wrong have no meaning whatsoever outside of an ethical framework. And no ethical framework is universally accepted as correct. So I think it's a little ethnocentric to claim that people whose religions or cultures disagree with yours on what's right and wrong...are wrong. To say something doesn't make sense to you is fine...to say you see no purpose, and only see harm...I get that. But wrong? By what measure?

[Realist]

Well said, Annika!

I've worked with people from all over the world and, one thing we were warned to never do was, discuss politics or religion with those from other countries. I agree that in some instances, a furor can erupt easily, when some radically-held dogma is breached. I treaded lightly, in all instances....didn't want to develop an international ruckus!!

Regardless, I have been known to query some foreign soul, who I'd built up some rapport and confidence with. Some of the things that I learned were common place in other countries shocked me, just as some things we do in this country, shocked them! What is commonplace in one country, could be a criminal offense in another!

We are a often a product of our upbringing, whether we realize it, or not. My own family has a history of being uber moralistic, dogmatically religious, and prejudiced. My sister is much less so, and I have rebelled even further and have become much more moderate and accepting in my convictions. As far as I know, I am the only one in my extended family, who is bisexual! Some of us have become our own persons, with our own set of rules to live by.........while many never leave the mold they were cast in.

[hasty1]

Hi Annika L - I was simply stating my feelings on the matter, there clearly is no right answer for all. Of course my feelings and opinions are informed by the person I am, what my upbringing is etc, that's the same for everyone, and what a forum discussion is for? I was saying that I thought that forcing a procedure onto a minor who has no choice, other than medical reasons, was wrong. This is simply my opinion and I can agree to disagree with anyone who holds a different belief. This is a very contentious issue, things that have been done historically to women (foot binding and female circumcision for example) to keep them subservient and faithful become culturally instilled, my opinion is this particular topic is as much about women's rights as who decides to what with their genitals. What adults may do to their bodies, and for whatever reason, I have no issue with. If you decide to have a female circumcision as an adult, or have your vagina prettied up, that's up to you. I defend your right to modify your body how you wish, but I also defend those who cannot choose to make this decision.

[cherry88]

i -know- this isnt funny but did they really say



"the diagnosis of labial hypertrophy is a slippery term"

[darkeyes]

I do question...if actions taken for cultural and religious reasons are "wrong", then by what ethical framework do you approach the concepts of "right" and "wrong"? Keep in mind that many people (I'm not one of them, but I would guess that I'm talking about well over half the world's population here) use *almost exclusively* either a cultural or religious ethical framework for making decisions. So by their ethics, they'll call you wrong (or mistaken or misguided or sinner or infidel or whatnot), and they'll be no more wrong than you are...unless, of course, their god really does exist and advocates their beliefs, in which case they'll be a *lot* less wrong than you.

Right and wrong have no meaning whatsoever outside of an ethical framework. And no ethical framework is universally accepted as correct. So I think it's a little ethnocentric to claim that people whose religions or cultures disagree with yours on what's right and wrong...are wrong. To say something doesn't make sense to you is fine...to say you see no purpose, and only see harm...I get that. But wrong? By what measure?


This is an interesting and important contribution to debate only in part because of the importance that people attach to their culture, their traditions and their religion and the respect we should treat both peoples and cultures, but also because we have historically found very often that by meddling and imposing the traditions, beliefs, religion and culture of another people from the outside has caused immense suffering and great tragedy.

Yet human beings all have different beliefs in how they should live life, and how they should raise children because of the culture and/or religion we may or may not be a part of, and the beliefs we hold. There will always be within other cultures things which we abhor or merely dislike and disapprove of and things within our own which others feel just as strongly about.. because something belongs to another culture and is unacceptable to our own, does this mean that we should not endeavour to change other cultures to eradicate what we believe is abhorrent and wrong? No it does not.. neither do we have any right to refuse to enter into dialogue with people or organisations, nations, from outside about aspects of our own which they may find equally appalling. No culture is so perfect that it cannot be improved and made better... but with interaction between people and cultures and change, being made better cannot be guaranteed. But that is no reason to stop dialogue.

We are, as Annika states quite rightly, products of our upbringing, and the culture which surrounds us of which we are a part and to which we contribute,plays its part in that upbringing, as indeed do the various religions and traditions which have made their contribution to making our cultures what they are for good or ill.

Culture changes as we change and the cultures of my country and probably most others have changed drastically in the last half century, not out of recognition perhaps, but sufficiently to be very different beasts from what they were in the late 1950s and 60s. This change has been brought about by immigration, communication and the media, but the web, by dialogue with people of other cultures and by our acceptance, often grudgingly of the changes which have been made. By interaction between peoples we have changed as human beings always change and our culture changes as it too always changes.

In part, the rise of fundamentalism is as a result of these changes and the march of multiculturalism across the planet as many people resist change as we all know.. also historical resentment of the west has also played its part and its bloody minded arrogant obsession with making every other part of the world more like it over the last few centuries bears arguably an even greater responsibility as it has sought to impose its will and its way, often by military force, corruption and blackmail, upon peoples of many and all cultures. Historical resentment of all great powers for that matter. There is a world of difference between interaction, dialogue and imposition as humanity and indeed all life on the planet has increasingly found to its cost.

So while I understand and generally agree with Annika and have no issues in accepting her statement, I do not think that should prevent us, nor does it absolve us from trying, through argument and dialogue, using the local, national and international institutions and organisations available to us, the media, and campaigning to bring about change elsewhere by persuasion and force of argument, to change what we see and believe are the many wrong things which we see about us wherever they exist, and not just in our own little patch of ground. We cannot impose, but we can change attitudes and so make a difference.

Human attitudes have always changed which is why internationally so many once barbaric and what we consider cruel practices are no longer nationally and/or internationally acceptable. And while we try and change the worst of other peoples and cultures, we should not be surprised when people of other cultures, as they do, endeavour to change our own... neither should we begrudge their efforts however much we may dislike the message... or the result.

The only measure, Annika is and can be our own, and what we believe is right or wrong... the question is do we allow wrongs as we see them to continue and say and do nothing, or do we try and make change which we believe is for the better in accord with our own beliefs? We have a right in my opinion, as human beings to argue for those things in which we believe as do all other peoples, and to strive for change no matter whether it is a change in the regularity of our rubbish collection by our own local council, or whether it is the greater question of human rights in another country with a different culture, and the rights of children, so often neglected and abused, are among the most important of all human rights because we, the adult population, are supposed to be their guardian.

[Neonaught]

From a medical stand point theraputic circumcision, as opposed to elective, is used to treat certain conditions. Phimosis is the most common and consists of the inability to retract the foreskin completely or at all. Phimosis can lead to a number of nasty infections as well and just general poor hygiene. There is also a religious aspect to the practice. Male circucision is extremely uncomfortable in the post-op period, so I geusee if you have to undergo the procedure, it's best done early.
As for the female practice, I can see no theraputic benefits at all. I am not a urologist though.

[NjbiGuy01]

The question of religion can go on forever, so lets step aside on that one and dodge the bullet.

If someone has a legitimate reason (for example, my wife had gastric bypass and is now 160 lbs, where she was 300) and has excess flesh everywhere, including her vaginal lips...it causes cleanliness issues, and it can sometimes cause problems with here climaxing, as the clit is now buried deeper in flesh.... is it mutilation to want to correct that ? She wants to have her legs done, and the underside of her arms to remove excess flesh, why not her privates ? Where do you draw the line between vanity, necessity, and/or mutilation...? Some women have a hooded clit and therefore could be more sensitive if the hood were removed and the clit exposed....is that wrong to want to better enjoy sex ?

[darkeyes]

The question of religion can go on forever, so lets step aside on that one and dodge the bullet.

If someone has a legitimate reason (for example, my wife had gastric bypass and is now 160 lbs, where she was 300) and has excess flesh everywhere, including her vaginal lips...it causes cleanliness issues, and it can sometimes cause problems with here climaxing, as the clit is now buried deeper in flesh.... is it mutilation to want to correct that ? She wants to have her legs done, and the underside of her arms to remove excess flesh, why not her privates ? Where do you draw the line between vanity, necessity, and/or mutilation...? Some women have a hooded clit and therefore could be more sensitive if the hood were removed and the clit exposed....is that wrong to want to better enjoy sex ?
No one is saying that people can't opt for any kind of cosmetic surgery such as labiaplasty or male circumcision to deal with a recognised medical or physical problem, or for parents to consent to surgery to deal with such complaints.. nor is anyone saying that people should not be allowed cosmetic surgery because that's what they would like for aesthetic or preventative reasons... what the argument is about is the rights of the child in having cosmetic surgery upon bodily parts which are healthy decided for them, and at what age is a child sufficiently mature to be able to decide for her or himself that it be done?? The exception to this may be ( and I use the expression guardedly although I do have a very firm view) what is known as Female Genital Mutilation or female circumcision which is banned in the west irrespective of age.

[Annika L]

Hi Annika L - I was simply stating my feelings on the matter, there clearly is no right answer for all. Of course my feelings and opinions are informed by the person I am, what my upbringing is etc, that's the same for everyone, and what a forum discussion is for?


So while I understand and generally agree with Annika and have no issues in accepting her statement, I do not think that should prevent us, nor does it absolve us from trying, through argument and dialogue, using the local, national and international institutions and organisations available to us, the media, and campaigning to bring about change elsewhere by persuasion and force of argument, to change what we see and believe are the many wrong things which we see about us wherever they exist, and not just in our own little patch of ground. We cannot impose, but we can change attitudes and so make a difference.

I want to be clear what I'm saying here and what I am not. I am absolutely *not* saying that cultural and religious differences leave no room for discussion. I *am* saying that if all you have to say is "In my opinion, children shouldn't have this done to them," then say that and don't invalidate the culture and religions of others into the bargain.

But if we actually want to make a change as Fran suggests, or want to engage in a debate over the topic (any topic, really), then it is necessary that we respect the competing viewpoints, and find a common ground with those who hold competing views...get them to view the situation in a different light. The way to challenge an ethical framework is not to say "that's not a valid basis on which to make decisions" (unless it truly is a patently ridiculous basis on which to make decisions...and if you think culture and religion are, you at least need to realize that it is unproductive to say so). The way to challenge an ethical framework is to find another ethical framework with which the "opponent" may also agree, at least in part, and use it as leverage. For instance, you could point out the permanent harm done (e.g., female circumcision often leaves women vastly less capable of orgasm)...and trust that opponents don't *want* to harm children or to cause them sexual dysfunction in adulthood. This puts them in the position of having to question whether their religion or culture weighs more in their minds than their distaste for hurting children.

To be clear, I personally find routine female circumcision abhorrent (that's a statement about me). I've heard several reasons why people have it done to their daughters, and they all sound very male-centric...more evidence of men wanting power and control over women's bodies. Some of the reasons include an explicit *desire* to keep the woman from experiencing orgasm...so she won't enjoy sex, as a way of discouraging her from being unfaithful. This does not sound respectful to women...quite the opposite...setting the woman up so the man can enjoy her, but she cannot enjoy him. So I do question the value that women are held to have in any culture or religion that advocates this practice.

I also don't find the harm done to be remotely comparable to male circumcision: maybe there are millions of women out there who've had this done to them, and are fine with it, and don't experience sexual dysfunction...but unlike with male circumcision, I've never heard from such women. Also, in many of the cultures where it's done, it is done at just pre-adolescence, rather than in the general fog of infancy. If male youths were being forced to have their bits trimmed in certain societies, that too would bother me. So I don't consider this a double standard on my part.

But of *course* anyone who decides on their own to submit to these procedures has a right to do that. Certainly there are reasons people might, as njbiguy points out. And I agree that this is not what this discussion is about.

[tenni]

http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episod.../514/Clear-Cut (http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/watchonline/514/Clear-Cut)


Thanks you goldfinger for the link. I watched about half of it so far. I found that it was enlightening and connected in some ways to what Annika was writing about.


In the case of selecting which values a society will adhere to, I agree that religious and cultural aspects may vary from country to country. Judging another country’s practices is difficult. In the case of the two African countries in the film suggested by goldfinger each of the two women had differing experiences and different levels of female circumcision. The attitude that this procedure was part of an honourable place that was valued in the society was key to acceptance. They saw it as honour to be joining the women society.


I think of my own multicultural society. There is an attempt to respect differences and values. There does seem to be a point when values connected to democracy and freedoms come in to play. The secular aspect of a society and what it values such as rights and human rights can come into conflict with cultural values of those from a different society who immigrate. We have to decide if it is cultural custom differences to something more significant to a democratic society. If a human right is violated, such as equality issues then the cultural custom may be seen as inappropriate. The problem may be to determine if it violates a democratic principle or it is really based in custom differences.

[darkeyes]

Firtsly, let me be clear.. it is a rare thing indeed for me to say that certain surgical procedures for cosmetic reasons, or cultural or religious should not be performed on a mature, responsible and well informed adult should that adult consent and no pressure is brought to bear for that adult to undergo whichever procedure he or she chooses.. I do however exempt what we know as Female Genital Mutilation from this.. it is currently banned in most western countries and for very good reason. It should remain banned. Even health service establishments are unable in law to perform such procedures unless there is a pressing medical need.

Essentially FGA is a tool of some cultures for the control of women and deprives them of so much of what makes them women and performed on young and adolescent girls from western countries who are genitally butchered while on visiting grannie on "holiday" from school having and who had no idea of why they are there in the first instance, or who are butchered in what some term and practitioners consider is a rite of passage as young native born girls are as they approach womanhood in countries where the practice of FGA is culrurally common... . FGA is done to oppress women and their sexuality and leads to many short term complications and even more in the longer term, makes intercourse difficult, robs women of sexual pleasure and often leads to problems giving birth and even death. It is not as male circumcision, but involves far more extensive alteration of a girl's sexual anatomy.. how extensive depends on the form of the "circumcision" involved... it is not done for health reasons, and it is not circumcision at all.... It is an obscene part of certain cultures that should be removed from those cultures and thankfully, there are signs that fewer girls are being mutilated and progress is being made... even surgically performed by recognised health agencies, many or all of the long term problems endured by girls and women who have had FGA will continue. Not all things we wish for should be realised.. FGA does not make a culture bad.. but it does make FGA a bad part of the culture and we should engage in changing minds, and this we can do to some degree in our own societies where we think that there is a danger of FGA being inflicted upon a girl who may be about to visit her or her parents country of origin...... but a wider world wide campaign is beginning to show results and while it is far too early to say that the end is in sight, it is surely welcome progress and shows that there is just a chance of an end being achieved.http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/female-genital-mutilation/Pages/Introduction.aspx

If I can turn now to young children who have ears, noses, belly buttons etc pierced for fashion jewellery, I am not as a parent one who encourages a parent insisting upon it.. quite the contrary.. I think that is an appalling abuse of that child and is done not for the child's sake but the parents wish that the child conform to her own vision of what (more usually) her child should be... but neither am I one to say that a young child even as young as 5 or 6 is necessarily too young to want piercings in her ears and maybe even her nose... but other than that I think for very young child it is a step too far...it is, with those reservations, for her to decide upon should parents agree, and they be allowed within reason, provided that there is no parental pressure placed upon the child and the child knows what to expect and able to do her own after care... piercings are temporary. But parents should also have piercings done by a piercer who has the highest standards and not some back street tat shop where hygiene is of a low priority... side effects can be serious, some extremely so. I have seen the results of this more than once. No reputable piercer will undertake piercing any genitalia or nipples on a person under 18, and none should agree to piercing any child without parental consent and a parent present.

Regarding cosmetic surgery the NHS in the UK will perform any kind of cosmetic surgery on a child free of charge if there is a sound and pressing medical reason for it to be done.. young girls occasionally do suffer the same problems as their mothers and labiaplasty is commonly done on young girls to deal with labial problems. Cosmetic surgery for cosmetic or fashion reasons can also be done by the NHS or Private Clinics on young people who have had parental consent .. there is a fee for this because it is not considered of medical need. Some kinds of surgery are denied because a child is still growing and would be better undertaken at an older age... surgical ethics is important and whether such surgery is done at the right time, but this can be a matter of judgement and sometimes surgeons can be too rigid when refusing to undertake such surgery.. some of course.. quite the opposite. But in principle, I am not opposed to cosmetic surgery on young children as long as the child is old and mature enough to be aware and well informed enough to consent and no pressure should be put upon any child or younger person by parents or anyone else for any cosmetic procedure to be undertaken. Normally I would prefer a person to be adult, but many young people and children are remarkably mature and can absorb very complex information, but we all mature at different rates and so we must take account of each individuals own maturity. But never, for any reason, should there be pressure placed upon any person of whatever age, and this especially true of the young.

However, while I am not opposed to cosmetic surgery for other than medical or psychological purposes, it should never be rushed into.. and while a child may be able to rationalise that he or she wants something altered, such is our society that much is because of what we perceive as the ideals we see in magazines and newspapers, flm, stage and the cat walk, the impressionable nature of children, and adolescents may lead them in to doing something they may later come to regret.. many adults come to regret their cosmetic surgery.. and young children become adults and there perceptions of what is beautiful or desirable changes with time and maturity. So optional cosmetic surgery is something parents should be very wary of when pressed by a child. I may not be opposed to for children in principle, but neither am I particularly enamoured of the idea.

[hasty1]

Reported today in the British news - an 11 year old girl wrote the following letter to a charity that fights FGM. Broke my heart.

Dear Madam

My name is ******* and I am 11 years old. I and my mum, sisters and brother came to England in 2005 when I had just turned 6 years old to join my dad who was at University. We come from Gambia in West Africa.

Three weeks ago we were watching a TV programme on African culture and as they were showing girls having their privates cut, my older sister who is 12 years old started crying. After 2 days she told my dad that she also had her private cut. Mum and Dad never knew about it and she was told if she ever tells anyone the sprits will come and kill her immediately. She said it was done one weekend by my aunties at my nans house. Last Friday mum took her to our GPto have her checked and the doctor said it was done to her.

This morning when I went to school I told one of my teachers about it and together we went on the computer and found your group. The teacher asked me to write to you and ask for your help. I don’t want my private cut by anyone.

My dad loves us very much and he did not like what they done to my sister and he is very confussed. We should be going back to Gambia any time after Eid and he is worried and upset that they would do the same to me. I don’t what that too.

If you reply to this letter I will showe my dad and I am shore that he would be very glad to have your help. He is my best friend and if he knows what to do he would do it, he would not want anything to hurt us – I know that.

Please madam help me, and my dad. If you reply soon he would definately contact you if you can help. I really hope you can help me, not to have my private cut. I am reallye confused expessically seeing my dad so un-happy and not knowing what to do.

Thank you very much for reading my letter.

[darkeyes]

Just for info.. 'bout time other countries started chucking in a few quid innit? http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/mar/06/uk-funds-female-genital-mutilation-generation

[zigzig]

I can say that I'm against Female Genitalia Mutilation. I read the book by Khady Koita, and I was disgusted by the procedures they do to women in the name of their beliefs, because they suffer all of their lifes because of it in sexual and mental way. There is a difference between labia plasty and FGM. Labia plasty is done voluntary, and women probably think that their bodies will look better. I am surprised that 14 year old girls are now allowed to do that, because when I was 14, I was still a child in my mind and wasn't able to think seriously.

[Realist]

When I was 16, I was dating a girl who had very extended labia. She was embarrassed about it, because her older sister had teased her about it. I tried to tell her that I thought they were very appealing and didn't think she should have cosmetic surgery. I was just learning about oral sex with girls and I especially enjoyed it with her. Still, her dream was to get her labia cut, so they wouldn't protrude. I was sent away to school that year and she moved while I was gone. I always wondered if she had the surgery done, or not? I hope not.

[lizard-lix]

When we lived in New York and my wife was in medical practice, she had several female patients who had been 'circumcised' in each case they had their clitoris completely removed, which, to me, like Fran says above "deprives them of so much of what makes them women." In every case they said that they would have the same done to their daughter(s). Because it they didn't, they would not be accepted into their society, get good marriages, etc...

It was one of the saddest, most stupid things I have ever heard, and I hope that one day there will be enough education and change so that people will just stop this shit.

As for labiaplasty, I have enough friends and acquaintances who are tatted, pierced and modified, that while I think it is silly (I've never seen a vag I didn't like :-), it is a personal choice (and back to above, as long as it is consensual, none of my business).

As for male circumcision, it is in the same category as far as I am concerned, I was cut at 8 days for religions reasons and even though I am no longer religious, I am perfectly happy with what they kindly left me :-) I am amazed at how much vitriol and argument go on about the subject. While I have never met anyone cut late enough in life to be able to compare, I've never been convinced that it makes that much of a difference.

YMMV (or footage or inchage :-)

HAPPY FUCKING FRIDAY!

Liz

[BiDaveDtown]

For those who believe male circumcision should be allowed for religious reasons; GET REAL. Do you know what the bible, what Orthodox Judaism and most of Islam says about us bisexual and gay men?! I guess it also means that you condone female circumcision for religious reasons and the fact that Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and especially Islam put women in a subservient position to that of men. If you're arguing for male circumcision because of religion/culture, or freedom of religion then you are for female circumcision as well since there are various religions and cultures worldwide who do this to girls as a part of their religion or culture. No one chooses their religion when they are born. Boys are born Jewish through their Jewish mother or they are Moslem because of their Moslem mother or Moslem father, therefore they are Jewish or Moslem, therefore they DO NOT need their foreskins chopped off to become Jewish or Moslem. Also, let them decide if they want to be Jewish or Moslem when they are older. Religion is not a sufficient reason to mutilate a child's genitals. Actually there is not sufficient reason. If I know anything I know dick. Circumcision makes masturbation more difficult. It makes sex harder and less pleasurable for the receptive partner. And it desensitizes the penis, POTENTIALLY decreasing sensitivity and sexual pleasure. Now of all the things about life on Earth as a human male, sex is one of the best things to look forward to. What kind of sick fucks are you that would POTENTIALLY limit that for a child. There is nothing that can be gained by circumcision that can’t be gained by a little soap and water. And there is so much to lose. Everyone is born with foreskin, girls too. It's commonly referred to as the clitoral hood in females, it's totally analogous to the male foreskin. ALL FORMS of infant and non-adult female circumcision is illegal in America, ALL FORMS to include: pin prick, clitoral removal, clitoral hood removal, labioplasty, etc. Because ALL forms of female circumcision in America is illegal, ALL forms of male circumcision ought to be illegal in America as well! Was their an outcry from religious groups in America, who practice any and/or ALL forms of female circumcision, when female circumcision became illegal? I think not. It's time that ALL MALES are protected from ANY form of genital mutilation when they are born. PERIOD! Women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands. When women foolishly claim "male circumcision makes no difference! It's just some useless skin!" I ask them when the last time they had an actual penis was? Since they'd like to falsely claim that the foreskin "makes no difference and that it's just skin" that they should be perfectly OK then with the removal of their clitoral hood, clitoris, or a reduction of their labia since this would make their vagina cleaner and more aesthetically beautiful than one that still has its clitoral hood and sloppy roast beef labia and all of that excess useless skin on their vagina. A cut vagina is cleaner since it does not produce any yeast or smegma. Why not remove the breasts or cervix too? She won't get breast cancer or cervical cancer if they're removed! Amputation of sexual tissue is a parental decision, and circumcision should be mandatory. There's nothing nastier than an uncircumcised clitoris or uncircumcised labia - yuck! All that smegma, and yeast! You can't get vulvar cancer if this icky nubbin of skin is cut off. There's no proof that circumcised women have any less sensation! Heck, if I had any more senstation it would drive me crazy, and I plan to circumicse my girls for health reasons. Clearly nature made a mistake, and all girls need to be cut. I'm being sarcastic here but it's a good thing that this is being done in San Francisco. Most people don't understand why circumcision is so widespread in the United States: it was promoted as a procedure to prevent sinful masturbation (didn't work out too well now did it?). I've met many men whose circumcisions were too extensive, leaving very heavy scarring they hated, nasty ugly skin bridges, or making their penile skin so tight that they felt pain when I lightly jerked them off. I have one friend that had his circumcision "botched" and they took skin from his balls and graphed it onto his cock and his balls do not hang at all and his penis is truly mutilated and deformed with heavy ugly scarring. I've seen other men both in person and in porn who had flat out ugly penises and it was because of circumcision. Also, allowing male circumcision diminishes our moral argument against female circumcision. I see ALL circumcision, both male and female done to infants to be genital mutilation. It's one thing to have it done elective as an adult but it's wrong to have it done to infants both boys and girls who have no consent over their bodies or genitals even though they should. Male circumcision reduces the amount of nerve endings in the penis and that decreases the lack of sexual pleasure, sensitivity, and control over the penis. Premature ejaculation is in the mind so don't give me that "If I was more sensitive I wouldn't be able to stand it!" BS. I know TONS of men bisexual, gay, and hetero who are very mad that they were cut and wish that they were left intact with a foreskin. The idea that a cut cock is somehow "cleaner" is a joke, it's called washing with soap and water like you should be doing anyway. Foreskin is the essence of man! It adds SO MUCH pleasure to sex and it's fun to have the inside licked and gently chewed on, and it's fun to fill it with piss or cum. Women's vaginas produce pungent smegma-it's seriously way worse than a man's, and a vagina produces yeast but nobody is saying how we should cut a baby girl's labia or her clitoral hood. Let's just stop cutting infants' and boys' and girls' genitals completely and be done with this barbaric and outdated practice that should have been outlawed thousands of years ago.

[BiDaveDtown]

Here's a history of circumcision and how it is genital mutilation and does decrease sexual pleasure for men and women.
The idea of separating the prepuce from the penis is older than the Old Testament. The first depiction of the procedure exists on the walls of an Egyptian tomb built in 2400 B.C.—a relief complete with hieroglyphics that read, “Hold him and do not allow him to faint.” The notion appears to have occurred to several disparate cultures, for reasons unknown. “It is far easier to imagine the impulse behind Neolithic cave painting than to guess what inspired the ancients to cut their genitals,” writes David L. Gollaher in his definitive tome Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery. One theory suggests that the ritual’s original goal was to simply draw blood from the sexual organ—to serve as the male equivalent of menstruation, in other words, and thus a rite of passage into adulthood. The Jews took their enslavers’ practice and turned it into a sign of their own covenant with God; 2,000 years later, Muslims followed suit. Medical concerns didn’t enter the picture until the late-nineteenth century, when science began competing with religious belief. Before long, surgeons were using circumcision to treat all manner of ailments. There was another, half-hidden appeal to the procedure. Ever since the twelfth-century Jewish scholar and physician Maimonides, doctors realized that circumcision dulls the sensation in the glans, supposedly discouraging promiscuity. The idea was especially attractive to the Victorians, famously obsessed with the perils of masturbation. From therapeutic circumcision as a cure for insomnia there was only a short step toward circumcision as a way to dull the “out of control” libido. In the thirties, another argument for routine circumcision presented itself. Research suggested a link between circumcision and reduced risk of penile and cervical cancer. In addition to the obvious health implications, the finding strengthened the idea of the foreskin as unclean. On par with deodorant and a daily shower, circumcision became a means of assimilating the immigrant and urbanizing the country bumpkin—a civilizing cut. And so at the century’s midpoint, just as the rest of the English-speaking world began souring on the practice (the British National Health Service stopped covering it in 1949), the U.S. settled into its status as the planet’s one bastion of routine neonatal circumcision—second only to Israel.

[BiDaveDtown]

fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/
Genital Mutilation American Style How a father discovered, too late, that circumcision is not a good thing. by Rio Cruz Most Americans, when presented with the information that approximately 97% of the world's infant male population is not circumcised, are rather astounded. "But I thought everybody was circumcised. I thought it was a medically necessary thing to do," said a friend when I brought up the issue a few weeks ago. "Nope," I replied, "not even close. The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too. Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons. The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses, against our sons, and does not allow us to see anything wrong. I never saw anything wrong with it either until I witnessed my own son being circumcised. The doctor assured me it was a simple little snip of extra skin that had no function and that really didn't hurt the infant. "You want him to look like you, don't you?" Well, since I really hadn't thought much about it, and since I, too, had gone under the knife at birth, I said "Sure. I guess so. Why not?" He didn't answer the "Why not?" but it was soon apparent to me. My newborn son was taken from his mother's warm, nourishing breast and placed naked on a cold, plastic board called a Circumstraint. His little legs were spread-eagled and strapped down with Velcro bands and his arms were strapped to his sides. He immediately protested and began to cry. The doctor draped a thin cloth with a hole in the center over his shivering body and drew his little penis through the hole. The doctor washed my baby's penis with an antiseptic solution. He took a pair of steel hemostats and, holding the penis in one hand, inserted the tip of the hemostat into the opening of the foreskin and began pushing it between the foreskin and the glans, ripping the two structures apart. The foreskin and glans were tightly fused together by the normal balanopreputial membrane called the synechia, similar to the membrane that attaches the fingernail to the finger. It's the body's way, in part, of protecting against harmful bacteria. My baby was shrieking now, his protest going from a simple cry to what sounded like screams of sheer terror. His body was rigid, contorted as he strained against the straps and the pain. If the Circumstraint had not been bolted down, it and my child would have crashed to the floor. Every instinct I had told me this was not right, that I should be protecting my son instead of acquiescing to the barbaric spectacle before me. But I am a "civilized" man. I have been socialized to accept what the doctor is doing. It's the right thing to do. Right? The foreskin did not easily give up its hold on my son's glans. The doctor continued to rip the skin with the hemostat. My son was shaking, tossing his head from side to side, his fists and eyes were clenched, sweat beaded on his brow. The doctor finally got the glans and foreskin separated, then clamped the foreskin tight with another hemostat and cut the skin vertically with scissors. The wound was bleeding profusely. He tried to insert a steel cone into the tissue but had to force it because the incision was too short. My son stopped screaming. His eyes were glazed and rolled back. He appeared to be sleeping, but he was really in a state of complete and total shock. The doctor put a large metal clamp around the bleeding foreskin, the cone supposedly to protect the glans, and he proceeded to crush the nerves, the blood vessels and tissue of the foreskin with the clamp. He took a knife and sliced around the clamp, letting the foreskin drop onto the cloth. My son lay motionless on the board, completely disassociated into some other, more hospitable space. The doctor looked at me and winked. He left the room. A nurse gave my son back to his mother. Welcome to America, little man. "Why not?" I ask again. I'll tell you why not. Because my son had absolutely no medical condition requiring the amputation of his perfectly normal, natural, healthy foreskin. None! There is not one child born in this country who has any condition requiring this procedure, yet out of cultural inertia, greed on the part of circumcising physicians and hospitals, flat out abject ignorance on the part of both doctors and parents, and the satisfying of psycho-sexual compulsions on the part of certain sadistic practitioners, the grisly business continues. And, it continues to fill the pockets and coffers of physicians, hospitals and clinics to the tune of approximately one billion dollars a year. Perhaps protecting this cash cow is one of the reasons I could not get even one of our area's circumcising physicians to agree to an interview on this subject. Not one! "That's much too emotional an issue to discuss," said one. "There are concerns for legal liability," said another. Others gave no reason. They simply refused to be interviewed. Still others never returned my calls. They all seem brave enough when armed with steel knives, clamps and scissors against an infant's naked penis, but try to engage them in adult conversation on this issue and they flee into the shadows. However, one well-known, popular family practice physician who does not perform circumcisions but who, nevertheless, preferred not to go on record for this article, said that circumcisions were done en masse in this country because "It's really a question of cosmetic surgery. It's an elective. It's tradition. There is no medical justification for it," she said. "We simply do it at the request of parents. It's their decision to make." But only if the child is a boy. Remember, girls are protected by law from such parental requests. Not many years ago it was perfectly accepted for dog owners to amputate the tail and cut the ears of their pets for cosmetic reasons. It was the owners' choice to make. Social consensus now holds this to be inhumane treatment of animals and few veterinarians will accede to such requests. The idea that anyone would even consider circumcising their pet for any reason at all is abhorrent. Incomprehensibly, it is still perfectly acceptable for parents to consent to the cosmetic amputation of their son's prepuce, a far more injurious operation than an ear clipping or a tail docking. As a society we should be ashamed of this fact. The idea that parents have the right to request amputation of normal, erogenous tissue is central to the debate surrounding this issue and highlights the ethical void enveloping the medical establishment. Leading medical ethicist and professor at the McGill Center of Medicine, Ethics and Law, Dr. Margaret Somerville, has stated publicly that circumcision, as performed in our country, is nothing short of "criminal assault." How could it be otherwise? If parents requested that their newborn have a healthy ear or a pinky finger or the tip of its nose amputated at birth so as to conform to family tradition or to look like Daddy or Mommy or the other kids in the neighborhood, or because it might get some sort of infection later in life, any ethical doctor would refuse to do it. If it was done, both doctor and parent would be hauled off to jail where they belong. Of course! Primum non nocere--First, Do No Harm!--the prime directive of the Hippocratic oath... until it comes to mutilating a boy's genitals. Then all ethical concerns are off. It was precisely this ethical void that prompted nurse Marilyn Milos to establish the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. These centers now have branches in almost every state of the union and throughout the world. "There really was no other choice," she said. "Baby boys were and are being routinely tortured and mutilated all over this country for no medical reason whatsoever. The doctors know this, the attending nurses know this. Yet the inertia of years of social conditioning and medical practice has immunized them against the pain and lifelong trauma they inflict on normal babies. It's the most grievous medical scandal of the century!" She videotaped a circumcision to show parents what the cutting entailed. The hospital authorities promptly censored the video and shortly thereafter she was fired from her job. "I simply wanted parents to know what they were subjecting their infants to. I wanted them to know what I wished I had known before allowing my own sons to be cut. I wanted them to make an informed decision on behalf of their sons. The medical establishment knew this would be devastating to their income and to their image as providers of loving care. They fired me for my efforts because they couldn't silence me. It's the best thing they could have done, however, because now I am no longer muzzled by an economically-motivated medical community. I am free to promulgate the truth of this barbaric practice and help put a stop to it." Help put a stop to it is exactly what she has done. NOCIRC has spawned a grass-roots movement all across this country and has been largely responsible for the drop in circumcision rates over the past ten years. Milos' efforts have also prompted other health-care practitioners to enlist in the cause. Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) was founded in 1996 and now counts physicians from all over the world among its ranks. "Many doctors recognize that no one has the right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual," says Dr. George Denniston, President. "They recognize that doctors should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted on the newborn. Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not only the Golden Rule, but the first tenet of medical practice, 'First, Do No Harm'. Amazingly, circumcision violates all seven principles of the A.M.A. Code of Ethics, and yet doctors continue to do it!" Dr. Denniston goes on to point out that, "Circumcision is not surgery, by definition. Surgical procedures have been defined as: repair of wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue, reconstructive surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy). Routine circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore, routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure." part 2 of Rio Cruz's article in next post

[BiDaveDtown]

Part 2 of article.
Besides the pain of the initial crushing and cutting, circumcision harms in many other ways. First, the male glans and inner foreskin, just like the glans clitorides and inner labia of women, are actually internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough, dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue. It's sort of like if you went around with your eyelids pulled back or your tongue sticking out all the time or if a woman were to walk around with her labia pulled back exposing the clitoris and internal lining to the air. The moist, warm membranes of eye, tongue, clitoris or labia would react to the dry air and defend against it. The nerve endings would become dulled because layers of cells build-up in a process called keratinization. This keratin, a tough, insoluble protein substance, is the chief structural constituent of hair, nails, horns, and hoofs. Over time, these once exquisitely sensual organs acquire all the sensitivity of an old garden glove. Circumcision is not simply the cutting off of useless skin. Author Gary L. Harryman innumerates what circumcision destroys: ***Its connective synechia, which fuses the foreskin to the glans while the penis develops. ***Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia. ***Most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the densely innervated ridged bands, reducing the sensitivity of the penis to that of ordinary skin. ***Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune system. ***Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's corpuscles. ***Estrogen receptors--the purpose and value of which are not yet fully understood. ***Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize. ***The protective covering of the glans, normally an internal structure. The foreskin shields from abrasion, drying, and callusing, and protects from dirt and other contaminants. ***The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, also found in mother's milk, and plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies. ***Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within a part of the body's immune system. ***The frenulum, the sensitive "V" shaped tethering structure on the underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or destroyed. ***The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful, silent, invisible signals to potential sexual partners. ***As much as 50% or more of the total penile skin, radically immobilizing and desensitizing whatever skin remains. ***The "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" back and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without drying out the vagina. ***The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans. ***10% to 20% of its circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis thinner. *** As much as one inch of the erect penis' length due to scarring and shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly vascularized foreskin. ***Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging its natural function and possibly stunting its growth. *** An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of the dorsal nerve. *** Perhaps most importantly, between at least 10,000 to 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture. And occasionally a boy will lose his life from this needless operation. It has been estimated that as many as 209 babies die every year from circumcision and related complications. It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning." The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation. The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate." Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary." On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years." The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure. The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills. Such persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence against routine circumcision should alert us to the fact that irrational, more emotional and compulsive forces may also be at work. These forces have been identified and were alluded to earlier: the seldom mentioned psycho-sexual pleasure derived by some, possibly many, circumcising physicians. The notion that the ranks of circumcising doctors harbor what have been termed "circumsadists" and "circumfetishists," comes as a shock to many parents who never considered the notion. They realized they were being pressured insistently by their pediatrician or urologist to have the procedure done, but it never entered their minds that darker motives may have been at issue. "The idea that we turned our son over to some pervert who got off sexually by handling and cutting our baby's penis just makes me sick," said one mother when learning of this possibility. "I had no idea such people existed." Few people outside the medical profession do realize this. As with the Catholic church and the pedophiles lurking within the folds of its priesthood, the medical profession has coalesced around a wall of lies and silence that allows these sadists to do their work in obscure anonymity. One person who does recognize their prurience is John Erickson. He has done extensive work on this subject and maintains a web site dedicated to the Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child. "It would never occur to most parents that the doctor's real reason for wanting to circumcise their child might be sexual," he says. "They hold their doctors in such high esteem that this whole area of surgical sexual perversion never comes up." Carla Miller, founder of Patients in ARMS, a non-profit advocacy group dedicated to reforming medical standards and eradicating patient abuse, who herself was sexually mutilated by an American doctor, has also given serious thought to this issue. She echoes the words of others who likewise have been victimized. "Like rapists, serial killers, and other sociopaths, serial circumcisers probably get a chemical high from doing the circumcision. The very act of shredding and mutilating a baby's penis with knives, clamps, electrocautery guns, or fingers affects the circumciser's brain chemistry like a drug, as irresistible as heroin. Carving, crushing, burning, and slicing a baby's penis, reducing it to gore, getting his hands covered with penis blood, and filling his ears with shrieks and screams of agony and terror are the potent elixir the serial circumciser needs to make himself feel alive." To date, the medical establishment has done nothing to identify and excise such sadists from their midst. They continue to cut and torture in protected anonymity, cold and oblivious to the screams all around. Perhaps the institutions that hire them actually support their compulsions because they help provide a steady cash flow for all. For obvious reasons, such "circumsadists" relish doing these procedures and are a principal source for the hundreds of millions of dollars a year that fill their pockets and the coffers of the sponsoring hospitals and clinics. It should be obvious to any caring, feeling person that amputating normal, healthy, sexually sensitive tissue for no valid medical reason whatsoever, especially when such a mutilative procedure is harmful both short term and long, performed against the child's screaming protests and with no informed consent, can only be regarded as an act of supreme cowardice, devoid of moral or ethical support. Given these facts, any physician who performs such acts should be held suspect, the onus of perversion entirely on him or her. A loving parent should think long and hard before offering their son to any circumciser. The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)." Last year a group of civil rights attorneys took note of this fact and banded together to form Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC). They are currently assessing this area of human rights concern and are starting to bring lawsuits against offending physicians and physician groups. Attorney J. Steven Svoboda, a former Human Rights Fellow at Harvard Law School and director of ARC, considers circumcision to be medical malpractice. "The medical profession, which has perpetuated this tragic disfigurement of baby boys' genitals, will now be challenged by an organization of legal professionals." If physicians cannot find the ethical and moral center sufficient to end this barbaric habit, then let a stop be applied by the courts. At the very least, it should make for spectacular theater. However you look at it, the case against circumcision is building towards critical mass and it won't be long before the whole putrid business falls of its own dead weight. For more information contact: National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) Post Office Box 2512 San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512 U.S.A. Telephone: (415) 488-9883 Fax: (415) 488-9660 http://www.nocirc.org/ Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.) 2442 NW Market Street, Suite 42 Seattle, Washington, 98107 U.S.A. http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/ Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC) 2961 Ashby Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 USA Tel. 510-848-4437 E-mail: svoboda1@flash.net http://www.noharmm.org/ARC.htm Patients In ARMS (Advocates Reforming Medical Standards) 7480 Gravies Road Dieters, Missouri 63023 USA (314) 274-ARMS Carmilarms@aol.com

[BiDaveDtown]

Another excellent, factual, and informative essay.
Each and every single day, thousands of innocent, helpless, newborn baby boys are taken into an operating room, strapped onto a restraining table, arms and legs firmly bound, and literally have their penises 'skinned alive'. First, surgical instruments are used to tear the skin loose from the head of the penis. This delicate, highly-innervated, extremely erogenous tissue is then peeled back from the helpless baby's tiny penis, like ripping a fingernail off a finger. The peeled-back tissue is then placed in a vise-clamp, and the tissue is crushed for approximately 10 to 20 minutes, while the baby screams in abject horror, his poor body twisting and convulsing from the pain. His tiny heart nearly explodes as his heartbeat soars to a staggering two hundred or more beats per minute. Then, as shock begins to set in, his breathing stops and his body turns blue. A doctor then takes a knife and amputates all this exquisite tissue from the baby's penis, forever altering that innocent child's life. There are no painkillers, no sedatives, no anesthesia - the baby is wide awake through the entire horrific experience. All the while, the unrelenting, inescapable pain permeates every fiber of that little baby's mind. If he's one of the more fortunate ones, he'll lapse into a comatose, catatonic state as his body shuts down while trying to escape the bombardment of his senses with unimaginable pain. After the amputation, there are no sedatives, no painkillers, no magical soothing ointments, lotions, or salves. His tiny, bloodied, nearly-skinless penis is a giant open wound - raw, bleeding, and extremely painful - and it is left in agony, to 'heal itself' over the course of the next several weeks or months. And while the penis heals, each and every time the baby urinates he is subjected to incredible pain, as the uric acid comes in contact with the exposed flesh. This 'procedure' is euphemistically referred to as a 'simple circumcision'. Every year more than a million and a half helpless baby boys are sexually mutilated in North America. These children have the most private and personal parts of their bodies amputated for the sole purpose of depriving them of their natural right to experience the exquisite range of sensual pleasure God intended them to have. All other excuses put forward in the hopes of justifying this butchery, whether medical, religious, or otherwise, are lies designed to perpetuate the mutilations. Society will not permit circumcision of a girl's clitoris, but the foreskin is a man's clitoris ... they are sexually analogous. The foreskin is the primary erogenous zone on a man's body! It is an abomination that this atrocity continues to be perpetrated in every hospital in North America, day in and day out, with such impunity!

[BiDaveDtown]

Here's another perspective.
Mothers who observed a circumcision Mothers Who Observed Circumcision "I didn't know how horrific it was going to be." "The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind." The typical hospital circumcision is done out of view of the mother in a separate room. However, a few are observed by parents, and many Jewish ritual circumcisions are done in the homes of the parents and observed by family and friends. Although some parents may report that this is a positive experience, this is not always the case. According to research, women are more likely than men to report distress from hearing an infant crying. Regarding circumcision, the father is more likely to deny his son’s pain because it could remind him of his own circumcision feelings. Therefore, witnessing the circumcision and the infant’s response can have a particularly shocking effect on the mother. Only recently have some parents been willing to describe their agonizingly painful experiences at their son’s circumcision. Though further research is needed to tell us how common these responses are, the fact that they exist at all is reason for concern and reflection. Some mothers have written about their experiences with circumcision during the previous year. “It was as close to hell as I ever want to get!” one wrote. Another related this memory: My tiny son and I sobbed our hearts out. . . . After everything I’d worked for, carrying and nurturing Joseph in the womb, having him at home against no small odds, keeping him by my side constantly since birth, nursing him whenever he needed closeness and nourishment—the circumcision was a horrible violation of all I felt we shared. I cried for days afterward. Melissa Morrison was having a difficult time seven months after she had watched the (nonritual) circumcision of her son: I’m finding myself obsessing more and more about it. It’s absolutely horrible. I didn’t know how horrific it was going to be. It was the most gruesome thing I have ever seen in my life. I told the doctor as soon as he was done, if I had a gun I would have killed him. I swear I would be in jail today if I did have a gun. Two other mothers have reported to the Circumcision Resource Center that watching their son’s circumcision was “the worst day of my life.” Another mother noted that she still felt pain recalling the experience about a year later. She wrote to her son: I have never heard such screams. . . . Will I ever know what scars this brings to your soul? . . . What is that new look I see in your eyes? I can see pain, a certain sadness, and a loss of trust. Other mothers clearly remember their son’s circumcision after many years. Miriam Pollack reported fifteen years after the event, “The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind.” She added later, “His cry sounded like he was being butchered. I lost my milk.” Nancy Wainer Cohen recalled her feelings connected with the circumcision of her son, who is now twenty-two: I heard him cry during the time they were circumcising him. The thing that is most disturbing to me is that I can still hear his cry. . . . It was an assault on him, and on some level it was an assault on me. . . . I will go to my grave hearing that horrible wail, and feeling somewhat responsible, feeling that it was my lack of awareness, my lack of consciousness. I did the best I could, and it wasn’t good enough. Elizabeth Pickard-Ginsburg vividly remembered her son’s circumcision and its effect on her: Jesse was shrieking and I had tears streaming down my face. . . . He was screaming and there was no doubt in his scream that he wanted mother, or a mothering figure to come and protect him from this pain!! . . . Jesse screamed so loud that all of a sudden there was no sound! I’ve never heard anything like it!! He was screaming and it went up and then there was no sound and his mouth was just open and his face was full of pain!! I remember something happened inside me . . . the intensity of it was like blowing a fuse! It was too much. We knew something was over. I don’t feel that it ever really healed. . . . I don’t think I can recover from it. It’s a scar. I’ve put a lot of energy into trying to recover. I did some crying and we did some therapy. There’s still a lot of feeling that’s blocked off. It was too intense. . . . We had this beautiful baby boy and seven beautiful days and this beautiful rhythm starting, and it was like something had been shattered!! . . . When he was first born there was a tie with my young one, my newborn. And when the circumcision happened, in order to allow it I had cut off the bond. I had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I cut it off to repress the pain and to repress the natural instinct to stop the circumcision. (italics added) After several years, Pickard-Ginsburg says she can still feel “an element of detachment” toward her son. Her account is particularly revealing. That she “cut off” feelings toward her son by observing his circumcision suggests that her son may have responded similarly toward her by experiencing his circumcision. Furthermore, because she was willing to feel and communicate the intensity of her pain, we have a clue to why more mothers who observe their son’s circumcision do not report such pain. Denial and repression may keep this extreme pain out of their awareness. Observing their son’s circumcision has left some parents with a deep feeling of regret. The following quotes are typical: I am so sorry I was so ignorant about circumcision. Had I witnessed a circumcision first, I never would have consented to having my son circumcised. Always in the back of my mind I’ve thought, “I wish he hadn’t been cut.” I have apologized to him numerous times. If I had ever known, I wouldn’t have done this in a million years. I felt as if I might pass out at the sight of my son lying there, unable to move or defend himself. His screams tore at my heart as his foreskin was heartlessly torn from his penis. Too late to turn back, I knew that this was a terrible mistake and that it was something that no one, especially newborn babies, should ever have to endure. A wave of shock coursed through me—my body feeling nauseatingly sick with guilt and shame. All I could think of was holding and consoling my child, but his pain felt inconsolable—his body rigid with fear and anger—his eyes filled with tears of betrayal. Some mothers who did not witness the circumcision have since regretted allowing it: The nurse came to take the baby for the circumcision. I have relived that moment over and over. If I could turn back the hands of time, that would be the one moment I would go back to and say, “I don’t think it’s a good idea. I need another day to think about it” and just hold on to him because I wasn’t sure. I think if I had held on to him it might have turned out differently. I just shouldn’t have let him go when I was so ambivalent. After they took him I went into the shower, and I cried. When they brought him back to me, I could see that he had been crying and had a glassy, wild look in his eyes. I think it was terror. I didn’t know what had been done to him, but I could tell whatever it was, it hurt. I’ll never forget that look. They probably shattered every bit of trust he had. I’m very angry about it. I would never have done that to my own son. No mother would take a knife to her child. When I looked at his penis, I was again instantly sorry that I had allowed it to be done.

[IanBorthwick]

As for male circumcision, it is in the same category as far as I am concerned, I was cut at 8 days for religions reasons and even though I am no longer religious, I am perfectly happy with what they kindly left me :-) I am amazed at how much vitriol and argument go on about the subject. While I have never met anyone cut late enough in life to be able to compare, I've never been convinced that it makes that much of a difference.

Liz

And had you had your ear cartilage cut off at the same age, which according to most scientists is more of a throwback to our primate ancestors than anything else, you'd more than likely say the same. Or in fact had you had your pinky cut off, or many other things before you were a fully aware, cognizant and completed PERSON, you'd obviously get used to it. So what is your argument except opinion based on anecdote and not remotely connected to facts or scientific evidence as to whether or not it's an important piece of flesh that's getting cut off. Since you have never been fully aware of the uses of what was cut off, nor sexually active as some have been and regretted what they were left with, you're not aware of what you do not have today.

As has been said before...I'm glad you're ok with what you (don't)have, but let's not maul our boys.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxhJXw0I4EA

[ExSailor]

Ian is correct "circumcision" of infant boys and young boys is nothing but a silly genital mutilation ritual done so for barbaric, silly, and pointless religious rituals that serve no purpose at all to those of us who have any intelligence, live in reality, and who are living in 2013. Yes circumcision does make a difference Lizard. I take it you have never had sex with a man that has a foreskin and if you did like I have you would get an idea of how circumcision robs you of sexual pleasure that you should be having if you had your genitals left alone as they should have been since the ritualized mutilation of an infant or young boy's genitals is completely unnecessary.