DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Odysseus on April 22, 2012, 12:08:58 PM

Title: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Odysseus on April 22, 2012, 12:08:58 PM
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/medics-offered-genital-mutilation-report-says-120425612.html

Quote
Medics Offered Genital Mutilation, Report Says

As many as 100,000 women in Britain may have been mutilated in the name of culture and religion, a report claims.
Female circumcision is performed on young girls and women around the world, especially in African countries.
Refugees who have come to the UK are perpetuating the practice, even though it is illegal.

The Sunday Times has uncovered what it claims is evidence of three medical practitioners offering advice on how it could be done, or in one case charging £750 to carry out the procedure.
The practice involves cutting the clitoris and stitching the wound and the vagina.
Omar Sheikh Mohamed Addow is a dentist in Birmingham, but was filmed describing how the clitoris could be pierced with a needle and then clamped.
"Once they won't feel anything, then you cut with scissors. It will bleed. Then you take the stitches. You close."
When contacted by Sky News he denied he said ever been involved in the act.
"I have not referred anyone for this treatment. I am a dentist. I am aware of female genital mutilation and have campaigned against it."

Yet he was he recorded by the Sunday Times apparently agreeing to mutilate two young girls, aged 10 and 13, in secret:

Omar Sheikh Mohamed Addow: I will do it for you.
Sunday Times reporter: Thank you.
Addow: Nobody should know. Between you me and Allah only.

The Sunday Times say they were put in touch with the Birmingham dentist by Dr Ali Mao Aweys, who has practices in Birmingham and London and was recorded suggesting it was safer to have the surgery outside the UK.
"Yes it must have (sic) confidential. But I think it's better if you go to Africa, and then do, and then stay for 14 days, and then I give you some medication you can take and then give them."
When Sky News visited his practice in north London his receptionist told us he was not prepared to comment and asked us to leave.
But he may have to speak to the General Medical Council .
The council's chief executive, Niall Dixon, said he was concerned and has begun an investigation.
Mohammad Sahib describes himself as an alternative medicine practitioner and the newspaper said he wanted £750 to perform surgery on the genitalia.

The newspaper secretly recorded this exchange:

Sunday Times (ST): You'll cut the clitoris?
Mohammad Sahib (MS): Yeah
ST: You'll cut with blade?
MB: Yeah
ST: You'll do it here?
MB: Yeah.
ST: What about stitching? Sew it?
MB: Yes I can do both.

There is no medical justification for any of these procedures.
And despite them being illegal, no one in Britain has ever been prosecuted for being involved.
Equality Now campaigner Efua Dorkenoo told Sky News: "Members of the community,family members know about it... there's a lot of pressure.
"And if you expose it you could be ostracised and you could be persecuted in the community.
"So people are frightened of coming forward."
Somali-born supermodel Waris Dirie , who was mutilated as a child, is an vociferous opponent of the practice.
Calling for a crackdown on it, she said: "If a white girl is abused, the police come break down the door. If a black girl is mutilated, nobody takes care of her.
"This is what I call racism."

Jeez, you don't think of these things happening in Britain in 2012, yet just below the surface.... there it is. Another example fo people just tiptoeing away when something is done in the name of religion.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: senecadawg2 on April 22, 2012, 12:58:39 PM
Sounds very stimulating
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jsem on April 25, 2012, 07:06:58 AM
Genital mutilation is just wrong.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: PraXis on April 25, 2012, 08:23:09 AM
Wow, what the hell is going on in the UK!? I bet they're loving those immigration laws (or lack of)!
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Phoenix87x on April 25, 2012, 06:15:05 PM
I remember being quite appalled the first time Female Circumcision was brought my attention back in High School Psychology. I remember thinking that something so awful couldn't possibly happen.

    How sadly, naive I was

   
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 25, 2012, 06:24:36 PM
I remember being quite appalled the first time Female Circumcision was brought my attention back in High School Psychology. I remember thinking that something so awful couldn't possibly happen.

    How sadly, naive I was

 

Since I'm interested in more serious thoughts than "How dare they, those heathens!" I'd love it if you could elaborate.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Odysseus on April 26, 2012, 01:54:06 PM
Wow, what the hell is going on in the UK!? I bet they're loving those immigration laws (or lack of)!

And not just UK either.  Apparently there's a growing problem in the US.

This is a pretty long artcle so I won't post the lot, just a couple of bits.  The link is here if anyone is interested:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/10/female-circumcision-comes-to-america/6051/


Quote
Female Circumcision Comes to America

Performed by new immigrants, veiled in deference to a cultural tradition of the developing world, female circumcision is becoming an American problem.............

Quote
Americans who are aware of the practice, which has been performed on some 100 million to 130 million women and girls worldwide, assume that it is a fact of life only for girls who live in faraway places—a form of barbarism that doesn't touch American homes, schools, or doctor's offices. This is simply not true. As more and more African immigrants move to this country, bringing with them their food, practices, and traditions, perhaps hundreds more daughters of African parents are circumcised in the United States every year.
Many of the immigrant mothers who are making these decisions about their daughters know little or nothing about their own anatomy. They are told that if the clitoris is left alone, it will grow and drag on the ground; that if their daughters are left uncircumcised, they will be wild, and will crave men; that no man from their home country will marry them uncircumcised (although many African men say that they prefer uncircumcised women for sex and marriage); that circumcision aids in menstruation and childbirth (although the opposite is true in both cases); and that it is a religious—usually Islamic—requirement (although none of the major Islamic texts calls directly for FGM). And so these women and their husbands come to the United States filled with misinformation, and remain blindly dedicated to continuing this torturous tradition..........

Abuse of the uninformed, pure and simple.  One could make a similar argument for circumcisions that aren't a medical necessity.  Why not wait until the child reaches 16, 18 or whatever age they are deemed to be adults and then let them make that decision for themselves?  That sounds reasonable.  I'd be interested to know by how much the proportion of circumcised males would change....
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Scheavo on April 26, 2012, 02:08:18 PM
If the problem is recent immigrants, it's not some social problem. It's the problem of the country wherever they came from.

Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 26, 2012, 02:10:27 PM
I don't mind being circumcised.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: soundgarden on April 26, 2012, 02:45:09 PM
If the problem is recent immigrants, it's not some social problem. It's the problem of the country wherever they came from.

This.  As an immigrant to the US myself, I find it unnecessary how over the top some discussions can be concerning society.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jsem on April 26, 2012, 03:36:26 PM
I don't mind being circumcised.
Does it really have to be pointed out that male and female circumcision aren't the same, don't have the same implications?
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 26, 2012, 04:12:05 PM
By this comment:

If the problem is recent immigrants, it's not some social problem. It's the problem of the country wherever they came from.



I wasn't sure if we were talking about men and women anymore. And even then, barring my own judgment of female genital cutting, I don't simply condemn without learning more. There are some areas of the Islamic world where the procedure is considerably less cringeworthy and degrading.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Scheavo on April 26, 2012, 04:56:48 PM
Well, my statement was in context of this thread.

Male circumcision is a different issue, and not really comparable to cutting off the clitoris for a female. Maybe if the head was literally chopped off?
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 26, 2012, 05:03:18 PM
I dunno, I read way back in my freshman year about this variation that's practiced in Indonesia that doesn't sound *too* bad. I mean sure I'm not thrilled about the idea of female circumcision myself, but if you gotta let some custom persist in other countries, the Indonesian version sounds like the way to go.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jammindude on April 26, 2012, 05:07:23 PM
I dunno, I read way back in my freshman year about this variation that's practiced in Indonesia that doesn't sound *too* bad. I mean sure I'm not thrilled about the idea of female circumcision myself, but if you gotta let some custom persist in other countries, the Indonesian version sounds like the way to go.

Sorry dude...I cannot agree.   Not that Wikipedia is the be-all, end all....but even if it's the 80% accurate that it usually is...this is just wrong.

The lowest level of female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris....rendering it virtually impossible for the woman to ever achieve orgasm...or by extension, enjoy sex at all.   And it's all in the name of the idea that they will somehow become sex maniacs if this isn't done.

There is NO version of this that's acceptable....and anyone who performs it (IMHO) should be castrated.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 26, 2012, 05:47:40 PM
I dunno, I read way back in my freshman year about this variation that's practiced in Indonesia that doesn't sound *too* bad. I mean sure I'm not thrilled about the idea of female circumcision myself, but if you gotta let some custom persist in other countries, the Indonesian version sounds like the way to go.

Sorry dude...I cannot agree.   Not that Wikipedia is the be-all, end all....but even if it's the 80% accurate that it usually is...this is just wrong.

The lowest level of female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris....rendering it virtually impossible for the woman to ever achieve orgasm...or by extension, enjoy sex at all.   And it's all in the name of the idea that they will somehow become sex maniacs if this isn't done.

There is NO version of this that's acceptable....and anyone who performs it (IMHO) should be castrated.

You're going to trust Wikipedia over something I read in a college course on Anthropology? :orly:
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jammindude on April 26, 2012, 05:54:17 PM
I dunno, I read way back in my freshman year about this variation that's practiced in Indonesia that doesn't sound *too* bad. I mean sure I'm not thrilled about the idea of female circumcision myself, but if you gotta let some custom persist in other countries, the Indonesian version sounds like the way to go.

Sorry dude...I cannot agree.   Not that Wikipedia is the be-all, end all....but even if it's the 80% accurate that it usually is...this is just wrong.

The lowest level of female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris....rendering it virtually impossible for the woman to ever achieve orgasm...or by extension, enjoy sex at all.   And it's all in the name of the idea that they will somehow become sex maniacs if this isn't done.

There is NO version of this that's acceptable....and anyone who performs it (IMHO) should be castrated.

You're going to trust Wikipedia over something I read in a college course on Anthropology? :orly:

Do be fair, you didn't elaborate on what your supposed "not too bad" version of this horrifying act could possibly be....and additionally, the fact is that removal of the clitoris *IS* the most widely understood version of "female circumcision".    If you have some lesser known "not so bad" version of this...the onus is on you to clarify.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 26, 2012, 05:57:09 PM
No it isn't, I don't owe you anything. All I was saying was that one shouldn't mindlessly condemn something just because by our standards it sounds cruel and unusual. We should try to understand it first, and then one can justly claim to reject it on its own terms. As I do.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jammindude on April 26, 2012, 05:58:45 PM
So, just to clarify, you are defending the removal of the clitoris at birth as a cultural choice...
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 26, 2012, 06:01:34 PM
No, I'm saying you shouldn't automatically reject another culture's customs because they seem strange to you. Try to understand it from their perspective, or even from a larger and more universal view, and if you still think it's intolerable, then fine. But we as individuals cannot hope to claim a universally acceptable moral compass, and so it's necessary to learn from others 'n' stuff.

Whatever, I'm not gonna have this conversation with you. In fact I don't know why I even bothered in the first place, especially when you make your own version of the opponent's argument as you go along. Go ahead and congratulate yourself.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jammindude on April 26, 2012, 06:28:59 PM
No, I'm saying you shouldn't automatically reject another culture's customs because they seem strange to you. Try to understand it from their perspective, or even from a larger and more universal view, and if you still think it's intolerable, then fine. But we as individuals cannot hope to claim a universally acceptable moral compass, and so it's necessary to learn from others 'n' stuff.

Whatever, I'm not gonna have this conversation with you. In fact I don't know why I even bothered in the first place, especially when you make your own version of the opponent's argument as you go along. Go ahead and congratulate yourself.

I'm not making this up from nothing.   I'm clarifying to you that this *IS* what you are communicating to me.   Maybe I'm alone in this...but even with your clarification....it sounds to me like you are saying that genital mutilation should not be dismissed entirely due to cultural reasons.

If that's what you're saying, just own it.  You have a right to your opinion, and I'll defend to the death your right to that opinion.  No matter how much I may disagree with it.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 26, 2012, 06:52:15 PM
I'm saying it should not be dismissed outright. That is not the same as defending it, even as a cultural choice. In fact if you look back you'll see that I've said I most certainly do not several times already.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: rumborak on April 26, 2012, 10:59:28 PM
Every time I read the thread title I have to remind myself it's not another Andy episode.

rumborak
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jsem on April 26, 2012, 11:33:03 PM
From what I've read (on wiki), Type I doesn't seem too horrid. As long as only the skin is cut off, like the foreskin would be during male circumcision. But cutting off the entire clitoris is imo not right, and Type 3 is about the worst thing I could possible imagine.

It's sad that this practice is so ingrained in so many cultures.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Odysseus on April 27, 2012, 09:47:27 AM
Male circumcision is a different issue, and not really comparable to cutting off the clitoris for a female.

I agree that it is a different issue in that it doesn't usually stop a male from enjoying sex.  I would also say that it is an issue in terms of a subject being physically harmed in a situation where the subject is not party to that decision.
But yes, they are two different arguments.  But in both these arguments, we are obliged not to recognise these as being harmful because religion is usually the reason for these actions.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Orbert on April 27, 2012, 12:28:07 PM
Every time I read the thread title I have to remind myself it's not another Andy episode.

I thought maybe it was the sequel to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Scheavo on April 27, 2012, 12:40:05 PM
Male circumcision is a different issue, and not really comparable to cutting off the clitoris for a female.

I agree that it is a different issue in that it doesn't usually stop a male from enjoying sex.  I would also say that it is an issue in terms of a subject being physically harmed in a situation where the subject is not party to that decision.
But yes, they are two different arguments.  But in both these arguments, we are obliged not to recognise these as being harmful because religion is usually the reason for these actions.

Oh, I don't support male circumcision either. What's fucked up is that it's standard OP in this country. Took me forever to figure out I was circumcised, and was sorta confused during sex ed when they were talking about the foreskin.

Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 27, 2012, 02:24:40 PM
How did you not know you were circumcised? Did your parents not tell you?
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Dark Castle on April 27, 2012, 02:43:21 PM
snip- I don't think  my comment was conductive, so I just removed it.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Orbert on April 27, 2012, 04:10:34 PM
How did you not know you were circumcised? Did your parents not tell you?

In my case, and I'm guessing it's the same with a lot of guys, I had no idea that what I had wasn't the way it originally was.  I assumed they all looked like mine, more or less.

At what age is it appropriate for parents to tell their son "By the way, when you were born, we had a doctor chop off the end of your penis"?
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Cool Chris on April 27, 2012, 04:12:03 PM
In my case, and I'm guessing it's the same with a lot of guys, I had no idea that what I had wasn't the way it originally was.  I assumed they all looked like mine, more or less.

Likewise. And at what point do you catch a glimpse of another one? In the high school showers?
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Scheavo on April 27, 2012, 04:14:30 PM
How did you not know you were circumcised? Did your parents not tell you?

No. Hell, maybe they didn't even know. Like I said, it's standard procedure to just circumcise male boys, quickly after they're born. I can understand if it's for religious purposes, but it's supposedly for health reasons that don't exist (if anything, the truth is the other way around). I assume it was done at the hospital, becuase my parents are in no way religious, and if it was for a reason, they would've told me.


Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jammindude on April 27, 2012, 04:25:15 PM
I know this from doing it to my son.   I was told that they *couldn't* do it until my boy was 8 days old.   What I was told (not claiming anything other than that) was that they baby's blood doesn't clot well enough that quickly after birth, so I had to wait more than a week and come back.

Now...what I had been led to believe is that it is simply easier to keep clean.    Additionally, I had it done and was always thankful of the fact, just because (and I suppose this is just personal preference) I always thought uncircumcised was just plain unsightly.  (I mean, sorry to all guys who are uncircumcised but....ewww..) 

I don't claim any other reasons than my own, and I don't ever try to convince anyone that my way is right.   It's just a personal preference...and I suppose it's somewhat cultural.   
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jammindude on April 27, 2012, 04:34:45 PM
snip- I don't think  my comment was conductive, so I just removed it.


I just got it.

Then I LOLed.   
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Scheavo on April 27, 2012, 05:07:13 PM
I know this from doing it to my son.   I was told that they *couldn't* do it until my boy was 8 days old.   What I was told (not claiming anything other than that) was that they baby's blood doesn't clot well enough that quickly after birth, so I had to wait more than a week and come back.

Now...what I had been led to believe is that it is simply easier to keep clean.    Additionally, I had it done and was always thankful of the fact, just because (and I suppose this is just personal preference) I always thought uncircumcised was just plain unsightly.  (I mean, sorry to all guys who are uncircumcised but....ewww..) 

I don't claim any other reasons than my own, and I don't ever try to convince anyone that my way is right.   It's just a personal preference...and I suppose it's somewhat cultural.

I've seen documentaries and video of them doing it to a baby pretty much just delivered. Some might do it differently, then, but I know a lot of hospitals just do it.

Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Cool Chris on April 27, 2012, 05:19:37 PM
.... but I know a lot of hospitals just do it.

I don't want to call you out on this, but we had a baby a year ago (yesterday :omg:) and while it was a girl and thus a nonissue, couples in our class had boys and we talked about how that was part of their plan they go over with the hospital and nurses prior to delivery. Nurses/doctors aren't going to 'just do it' of their own volition (unless that wasn't what you meant). Otherwise it was my impression it happened very shortly after birth. 
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Dark Castle on April 27, 2012, 05:27:19 PM
snip- I don't think  my comment was conductive, so I just removed it.


I just got it.

Then I LOLed.
Oh god, I didn't realize that fit the topic  :rollin
My original post was me saying I thought uncircumcised was unsightly, but I didn't want to offend anyone lol.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Scheavo on April 27, 2012, 07:01:57 PM
.... but I know a lot of hospitals just do it.

I don't want to call you out on this, but we had a baby a year ago (yesterday :omg:) and while it was a girl and thus a nonissue, couples in our class had boys and we talked about how that was part of their plan they go over with the hospital and nurses prior to delivery. Nurses/doctors aren't going to 'just do it' of their own volition (unless that wasn't what you meant). Otherwise it was my impression it happened very shortly after birth.

Oh, you can still opt out, but I think the default is that you get circumcised. At least in some hospitals.

My only point would be that most male circumcisions don't happen because of religion, and while the stereotype is for Jews, that really doesn't fit either. And just becuase it comes up, doesn't mean it's discussed or talked about thoroughly.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: rumborak on April 27, 2012, 08:04:30 PM
From what I hear, not getting circumcised is rising in the US. It's definitely the minority in Europe.

On a related note, this article is fascinating: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

rumborak
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: robwebster on April 27, 2012, 08:23:19 PM
No, I'm saying you shouldn't automatically reject another culture's customs because they seem strange to you. Try to understand it from their perspective, or even from a larger and more universal view, and if you still think it's intolerable, then fine. But we as individuals cannot hope to claim a universally acceptable moral compass, and so it's necessary to learn from others 'n' stuff.

Whatever, I'm not gonna have this conversation with you. In fact I don't know why I even bothered in the first place, especially when you make your own version of the opponent's argument as you go along. Go ahead and congratulate yourself.
I think making the irreversable decision that your daughter is never allowed to have an orgasm before she's old enough to know what one is is pretty messed up, years of cultural precedent or no.

As you say, some variants are basically harmless, but when a tradition takes a form that lies somewhere between "womanphobia" and "tool of oppression," I would argue that that's a tradition that probably should've been stopped centuries ago.

I think you're violently agreeing, though. He isn't automatically rejecting another culture's customs because they seem strange. He's rejecting them 'cos he is looking from a larger and more universal view.

EDIT: Though I may be getting confused between posters. I should clarify that this is all under the assumption that we're talking specifically about the more severe forms of circumcision, which is the impression I certainly got.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: rumborak on April 27, 2012, 08:39:23 PM
Culture should enrich, not deprive. That's my rule of thumb.

rumborak
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 27, 2012, 09:15:41 PM
How did you not know you were circumcised? Did your parents not tell you?

In my case, and I'm guessing it's the same with a lot of guys, I had no idea that what I had wasn't the way it originally was.  I assumed they all looked like mine, more or less.

At what age is it appropriate for parents to tell their son "By the way, when you were born, we had a doctor chop off the end of your penis"?

I dunno, maybe it's cuz I'm Jewish but I knew from a very young age. Certainly when I was single-digits.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jsem on April 28, 2012, 03:28:52 PM
I knew about circumcision from a very early age too. Probably before I was 7 or 8.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: pogoowner on April 28, 2012, 08:20:14 PM
The topic never once came up in my household. I discovered it (that I was circumcised) on my own as a teenager.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: rumborak on April 28, 2012, 08:43:32 PM
I think it is amazing how hospitals are even allowed to do this by default. As I understand it you have to specifically request not to have the baby circumcised. I can't imagine how the "mutilation" of the baby without direct consent can rest on proper legal grounding.

rumborak
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: GuineaPig on April 28, 2012, 08:49:34 PM
I think it is amazing how hospitals are even allowed to do this by default. As I understand it you have to specifically request not to have the baby circumcised. I can't imagine how the "mutilation" of the baby without direct consent can rest on proper legal grounding.

rumborak

Yeah, I honestly don't understand the acceptance of it.  It's not depriving to the degree of female circumcision, but the foreskin definitely plays a role in sex (and male pleasure), and just chopping it off by default seems... incredibly foolish.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: j on April 28, 2012, 09:13:30 PM
I think it is amazing how hospitals are even allowed to do this by default. As I understand it you have to specifically request not to have the baby circumcised. I can't imagine how the "mutilation" of the baby without direct consent can rest on proper legal grounding.

rumborak

Yeah, I honestly don't understand the acceptance of it.  It's not depriving to the degree of female circumcision, but the foreskin definitely plays a role in sex (and male pleasure), and just chopping it off by default seems... incredibly foolish.

 ??? The "data" on this is wildly variant, but definitely points toward the opposite conclusion.  There are also known problems with much higher incidence of various types of infections, rates of STD transmission, and other health considerations in uncircumcised individuals.  Literally 99% of the penile infections I've seen in the ER or clinic are in uncircumcised dudes.  Although granted, much of that is almost certainly exacerbated by poor hygiene.

That said, there are also risks inherent in the procedure itself, and I don't condone it being "standard universal practice," but the risk/benefit analysis is really a no-brainer.  This just strikes me as one of those issues where opinions and motivations are based on lots of other factors: i.e. whether or not the person speaking is circumcised, distaste for religious interests that promote circumcision, cultural or other group preferences (actual or perceived), etc.

-J
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: rumborak on April 28, 2012, 09:17:19 PM
??? The "data" on this is wildly variant, but definitely points toward the opposite conclusion.  There are also known problems with much higher incidence of various types of infections, rates of STD transmission, and other health considerations in uncircumcised individuals.  Literally 99% of the penile infections I've seen in the ER or clinic are in uncircumcised dudes.  Although granted, much of that is almost certainly exacerbated by poor hygiene.

It's a question of education and culture. In Europe almost everyone is uncircumcised, and we're not ending up in ER all the time with penile infections. We just clean it well during showing.

rumborak
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: MondayMorningLunatic on April 28, 2012, 09:48:44 PM

 ??? The "data" on this is wildly variant, but definitely points toward the opposite conclusion.  There are also known problems with much higher incidence of various types of infections, rates of STD transmission, and other health considerations in uncircumcised individuals.  Literally 99% of the penile infections I've seen in the ER or clinic are in uncircumcised dudes.  Although granted, much of that is almost certainly exacerbated by poor hygiene.

Let's shave people's heads because they can't be trusted to use shampoo.
Let's remove people's nails because they can't be trusted to clip.
Let's pull people's teeth out because they can't be trusted to brush.

See where I'm going with this?
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: j on April 28, 2012, 11:07:18 PM

 ??? The "data" on this is wildly variant, but definitely points toward the opposite conclusion.  There are also known problems with much higher incidence of various types of infections, rates of STD transmission, and other health considerations in uncircumcised individuals.  Literally 99% of the penile infections I've seen in the ER or clinic are in uncircumcised dudes.  Although granted, much of that is almost certainly exacerbated by poor hygiene.

Let's shave people's heads because they can't be trusted to use shampoo.
Let's remove people's nails because they can't be trusted to clip.
Let's pull people's teeth out because they can't be trusted to brush.

See where I'm going with this?

I don't, because none of those are accurate analogies, and I didn't suggest circumcising everyone because they won't clean under their foreskin.

??? The "data" on this is wildly variant, but definitely points toward the opposite conclusion.  There are also known problems with much higher incidence of various types of infections, rates of STD transmission, and other health considerations in uncircumcised individuals.  Literally 99% of the penile infections I've seen in the ER or clinic are in uncircumcised dudes.  Although granted, much of that is almost certainly exacerbated by poor hygiene.

It's a question of education and culture. In Europe almost everyone is uncircumcised, and we're not ending up in ER all the time with penile infections. We just clean it well during showing.

rumborak

Agreed, risk is lowered with education.  But good hygiene doesn't preclude all of the aforementioned infectious processes; the very nature of the environment created by the foreskin is a factor for many individuals.  And when it comes to things like the spreading of STDs in Africa, there are arguments to be made as well.

Again, not disagreeing that this should not be the default practice in hospitals anywhere.  Just providing some opposing arguments.

-J
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: MondayMorningLunatic on April 29, 2012, 03:09:57 AM
I don't, because none of those are accurate analogies, and I didn't suggest circumcising everyone because they won't clean under their foreskin.
They're the same thing in principle. If you can justify circumcision on the grounds that it may prevent certain infections, then you can justify tooth pulling on the grounds that it may prevent cavities. Promoting surgeries without a pressing medical need is a slippery slope. I'm glad to know that you're opposed to circumcision being the default in hospitals. But I hope you realize that your arguments about "infections" are the same ones that have made that procedure the default. Also, can you elaborate on this statement?
But good hygiene doesn't preclude all of the aforementioned infectious processes; the very nature of the environment created by the foreskin is a factor for many individuals.
If you're talking about men in the Third World who have limited access to condoms, your statement is true (even though the African HIV studies are MAJORLY flawed). But if you're talking about intact men in the First World who exercise good hygiene and safe sex, that's condescending to say the least.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Dark Castle on April 29, 2012, 04:08:39 AM
I don't, because none of those are accurate analogies, and I didn't suggest circumcising everyone because they won't clean under their foreskin.
They're the same thing in principle. If you can justify circumcision on the grounds that it may prevent certain infections, then you can justify tooth pulling on the grounds that it may prevent cavities. Promoting surgeries without a pressing medical need is a slippery slope. I'm glad to know that you're opposed to circumcision being the default in hospitals. But I hope you realize that your arguments about "infections" are the same ones that have made that procedure the default. Also, can you elaborate on this statement?
But good hygiene doesn't preclude all of the aforementioned infectious processes; the very nature of the environment created by the foreskin is a factor for many individuals.
If you're talking about men in the Third World who have limited access to condoms, your statement is true (even though the African HIV studies are MAJORLY flawed). But if you're talking about intact men in the First World who exercise good hygiene and safe sex, that's condescending to say the least.
They're not the same in principal because hair grows back, nails grow back, and the teeth removal is much more.  I really don't see why circumcision is treated like such a horrid thing.  I for one am glad that I am circumcised.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 29, 2012, 04:41:57 AM
Also smegma.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: MondayMorningLunatic on April 29, 2012, 04:46:15 AM
Also smegma.
Women get smegma too, so is female circumcision OK?
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on April 29, 2012, 04:47:48 AM
I'm not doing this again, just read the first page.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: rumborak on April 29, 2012, 07:57:35 AM
They're not the same in principal because hair grows back, nails grow back, and the teeth removal is much more.  I really don't see why circumcision is treated like such a horrid thing.  I for one am glad that I am circumcised.

Believe it or not, so am I not to be. You accept what you grow up with. Only that I would argue that being "whole" is preferable. We don't perform an appendectomy on birth either, just because there's a good chance you might develop appendicitis in your life.

rumborak
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Scheavo on April 29, 2012, 10:22:14 AM
Couple of years ago, I remember hearing how circumcision increased chances of contracting STD's. Was backed up by some studies I saw.

Now, when I look it up, it says the opposite.

Fuck you internet.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Orbert on April 29, 2012, 04:35:57 PM
We don't perform an appendectomy on birth either, just because there's a good chance you might develop appendicitis in your life.

An appendectomy is an invasive procedure and obviously would not be performed on a newborn without a good reason, such as a current threat to health.  Circumcision is outpatient.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: MondayMorningLunatic on April 29, 2012, 09:34:19 PM
I think I'll end my involvement in this thread by posting this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I)

It's interesting how circumcised women resort to the same defenses as circumcised men. "I don't mind." "It's not a big deal." "It's normal." "It's OK because a doctor did it." The same rationale is used to justify both procedures. Here's an interesting quote from an anthropologist in Sierra Leone:
Quote
"The uncircumcised clitoris and penis are considered homologous aesthetically and hygienically: Just as the male foreskin covers the head of the penis, the female foreskin covers the clitoral glans. Both, they argue, lead to build-up of smegma and bacteria in the layers of skin between the hood and glans. This accumulation is thought of as odorous, susceptible to infection and a nuisance to keep clean on a daily basis. Further, circumcised women point to the risks of painful clitoral adhesions that occur in girls and women who do not cleanse properly, and to the requirement of excision as a treatment for these extreme cases. Supporters of female circumcision also point to the risk of clitoral hypertrophy or an enlarged clitoris that resembles a small penis. For these reasons many circumcised women view the decision to circumcise their daughters as something as obvious as the decision to circumcise sons: why, one woman asked, would any reasonable mother want to burden her daughter with excess clitoral and labial tissue that is unhygienic, unsightly and interferes with sexual penetration, especially if the same mother would choose circumcision to ensure healthy and aesthetically appealing genitalia for her son?“

I think the important thing to gather from this discussion is that you cannot be opposed to female circumcision and act like male circumcision is "no big deal." In fact, male circumcision is worse than Type I and Type IV FGM in that more tissue is removed, and that tissue happens to be a lot more erogenous. Of course, it's not some pissing contest over which is worse because both procedures are barbaric and need to end. It's rather sad to see people defending genital cutting using cultural relativism or flawed medical information.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jammindude on April 29, 2012, 09:47:08 PM
I have not yet seen anyone provide any alternative evidence.   

Every piece of evidence that I have seen shows that female circumcision renders the patient incapable of orgasm.

I'm sorry...that is NOT A SMALL DIFFERENCE.   

Unless I see some evidence that there are procedures (maybe some that remove the hood only but not the clitoris itself??  IDK)  then maybe we can talk about it being the same.   

But one is able to have an orgasm, the other is not.   To me, that is the difference between removing the appendix and removing both kidneys.     
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: MondayMorningLunatic on April 29, 2012, 10:02:25 PM
Circumcised women can still orgasm:
https://allafrica.com/stories/201106280259.html (https://allafrica.com/stories/201106280259.html)
 https://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-sex.htmll (https://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-sex.htmll)
Quote
"Circumcised women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as uncircumcised women, according to a study in Nigeria."

The human body is remarkable at compensating for loss. In males, the center of orgasm is actual meant to be in the foreskin, and when he is circumcised, it moves to locations that are unnatural and less powerful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD2yW7AaZFw)

Sorry if this hurts you but facts are facts.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jammindude on April 29, 2012, 10:16:18 PM
First I have *ever* heard this...

*IF* there is a type that does not inhibit the ability to have an orgasm, I would have a different opinion about those types of procedures....and consider them to be more of a personal preference thing.

But it is still my understanding that that is not what's being addressed in the original post...and that most female circumcisions are done with the repugnant and despicable goal of rendering a woman incapable of enjoying sex, for fear she may become promiscuous. 
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: MondayMorningLunatic on April 29, 2012, 10:44:28 PM
most female circumcisions are done with the repugnant and despicable goal of rendering a woman incapable of enjoying sex, for fear she may become promiscuous

That may or may not be true. But I would argue that male circumcision, at least as it pertains to the West, developed for the same reason. Doctors in the Victorian Era promoted circumcision (both male and female) as a way to deter masturbation and sexuality. Harvey Kellogg of Kellogg's cereal fame was a big proponent. The REAL reason it's persisted is because it's very lucrative for hospitals; all this talk about hygiene is really just the cover story that's been used to sell this to the public. In addition to the insurance money, hospitals make thousands of dollars selling foreskins for medical research, skin grafts, and cosmetics. That side to circumcision might be benevolent, but do the ends justify the means?
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: eric42434224 on April 29, 2012, 11:23:08 PM
Doctors in the Victorian Era promoted circumcision (both male and female) as a way to deter masturbation....

It doesn't work. :hat
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jammindude on April 30, 2012, 12:27:43 AM
most female circumcisions are done with the repugnant and despicable goal of rendering a woman incapable of enjoying sex, for fear she may become promiscuous

That may or may not be true. But I would argue that male circumcision, at least as it pertains to the West, developed for the same reason. Doctors in the Victorian Era promoted circumcision (both male and female) as a way to deter masturbation and sexuality. Harvey Kellogg of Kellogg's cereal fame was a big proponent. The REAL reason it's persisted is because it's very lucrative for hospitals; all this talk about hygiene is really just the cover story that's been used to sell this to the public. In addition to the insurance money, hospitals make thousands of dollars selling foreskins for medical research, skin grafts, and cosmetics. That side to circumcision might be benevolent, but do the ends justify the means?

The evidence has already been submitted that it *is* cleaner...greater access to healthy bathing may have made the practice outdated and thus whether or not it is *still* a valid argument in the modern day may be debatable...but to claim that the hygiene is a "cover story" is just ridiculous.   You're turning circumcision into a conspiracy theory.   (insert snarky comment about conspiracy theories)   :flame:

 :hat
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: slycordinator on May 01, 2012, 12:39:14 AM
I can understand if it's for religious purposes, but it's supposedly for health reasons that don't exist (if anything, the truth is the other way around).
The CDC claims it significantly reduces your risk for contracting HIV (and other STDs as well) from having vaginal sex.

And although this is a bit anecdotal (and I think I mentioned it before in a similar discussion), I've known plenty of nurses that've worked in nursing homes and when people get older it's more difficult to clean your genitals and the according to these nurses, consistently the ones who got more infections from this were the ones who were uncircumcised.

I assume it was done at the hospital, becuase my parents are in no way religious, and if it was for a reason, they would've told me.
I highly doubt they did it without asking and/or explaining the procedure.

edit: Apparently, there's a doctor here who's more or less said the same things I said.
Oh and btw, I wasn't talking about people in third-world nations. I was talking about here in the US.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Scheavo on May 01, 2012, 09:47:09 AM
Couple of years ago, I remember hearing how circumcision increased chances of contracting STD's. Was backed up by some studies I saw.

Now, when I look it up, it says the opposite.

Fuck you internet.

Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Cool Chris on May 02, 2012, 01:12:48 PM
For these reasons many circumcised women view the decision to circumcise their daughters as something as obvious as the decision to circumcise sons: why, one woman asked, would any reasonable mother want to burden her daughter with excess clitoral and labial tissue that is unhygienic, unsightly and interferes with sexual penetration, especially if the same mother would choose circumcision to ensure healthy and aesthetically appealing genitalia for her son?“

Jesus, we had a daughter last year and the LAST thing on my mind at her birth was her possible “excess clitoral and labial tissue that is unhygienic, unsightly and interferes with sexual penetration.”

I am glad I am circumcised, as I have heard an uncircumcised penis has no face, no personality.

(https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhcqrzyVBX1qzvi2co1_500.gif)
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Odysseus on May 05, 2012, 10:51:02 AM
I just found the relevant British legislation on this:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/31/section/1

Quote
1 Offence of female genital mutilation

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he excises, infibulates or otherwise mutilates the whole or any part of a girl’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris.
(2)But no offence is committed by an approved person who performs—
(a)a surgical operation on a girl which is necessary for her physical or mental health, or
(b)a surgical operation on a girl who is in any stage of labour, or has just given birth, for purposes connected with the labour or birth.
(3)The following are approved persons—
(a)in relation to an operation falling within subsection (2)(a), a registered medical practitioner,
(b)in relation to an operation falling within subsection (2)(b), a registered medical practitioner, a registered midwife or a person undergoing a course of training with a view to becoming such a practitioner or midwife.
(4)There is also no offence committed by a person who—
(a)performs a surgical operation falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b) outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)in relation to such an operation exercises functions corresponding to those of an approved person.
(5)For the purpose of determining whether an operation is necessary for the mental health of a girl it is immaterial whether she or any other person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.

2 Offence of assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia

A person is guilty of an offence if he aids, abets, counsels or procures a girl to excise, infibulate or otherwise mutilate the whole or any part of her own labia majora, labia minora or clitoris.

3 Offence of assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl’s genitalia

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he aids, abets, counsels or procures a person who is not a United Kingdom national or permanent United Kingdom resident to do a relevant act of female genital mutilation outside the United Kingdom.
(2)An act is a relevant act of female genital mutilation if—
(a)it is done in relation to a United Kingdom national or permanent United Kingdom resident, and
(b)it would, if done by such a person, constitute an offence under section 1.
(3)But no offence is committed if the relevant act of female genital mutilation—
(a)is a surgical operation falling within section 1(2)(a) or (b), and
(b)is performed by a person who, in relation to such an operation, is an approved person or exercises functions corresponding to those of an approved person.

4 Extension of sections 1 to 3 to extra-territorial acts

(1)Sections 1 to 3 extend to any act done outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or permanent United Kingdom resident.
(2)If an offence under this Act is committed outside the United Kingdom—
(a)proceedings may be taken, and
(b)the offence may for incidental purposes be treated as having been committed,
in any place in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.

5 Penalties for offences

A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both),
(b)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).

A couple of people have recently been arrested over here on pending charges concerning those acts...
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: rumborak on May 05, 2012, 11:43:46 AM
It just occurred to me that had this thread been accidentally posted in GMD, everybody would assume it's tour dates of some death metal band :lol

rumborak
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: yeshaberto on May 05, 2012, 11:53:51 AM
 :D
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: ResultsMayVary on May 05, 2012, 11:56:13 AM
It just occurred to me that had this thread been accidentally posted in GMD, everybody would assume it's tour dates of some death metal band :lol

rumborak
:metal
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Orbert on May 05, 2012, 01:20:36 PM
It just occurred to me that had this thread been accidentally posted in GMD, everybody would assume it's tour dates of some death metal band :lol

rumborak

I was kinda disappointed that it wasn't.   :'(
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: rumborak on May 05, 2012, 01:57:22 PM
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32191.0

;)

rumborak
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Super Dude on May 05, 2012, 02:04:41 PM
Oh, you mean like these guys?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=genital%20meat%20grinder&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CJQBEBYwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myspace.com%2Fgenitalmeatgrinder&ei=xoelT6XPMsbegQeN1oXLAQ&usg=AFQjCNEOPOH-UpS9rn10HJ7J4ntB-PsjGw&sig2=JTGPq0DobCbdyldNmg0ATg
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Odysseus on June 13, 2012, 03:49:42 PM
Further to this topic, I just discovered this story.  Obviously there will be the ongoing issue of access, but it is good to see the possibilities for victims...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21902-mutilated-women-rediscover-sexual-pleasure.html

Quote
Mutilated women rediscover sexual pleasure

Pioneering reconstructive surgery has brought new hope to a small number of the 140 million women worldwide who have suffered the pain and sexual desolation of female genital mutilation. Newly published feedback from hundreds of women who have had the reparative surgery reveals that it worked for most of them, easing pain and improving sexual pleasure.
"The real news is that it's feasible to give back pleasure, feasible to reconstruct the clitoris, and possible to give women back their lost identities," says Pierre Foldès of the Saint Germain Poissy Hospital in France, who developed the procedure.
Foldès and his colleagues followed up almost 3000 women – mostly from Mali, Senegal and Ivory Coast – one year after they had undergone the procedure. Because internal clitoral tissue survives the mutilation, the surgeons were able to trim away scar tissue and build a new clitoris that would protrude in the normal way.
Of the 866 women who responded to the follow-up, 821 reported that their pain had improved or was no worse. Clitoral pleasure had improved or was no worse in 815 of the women. Some 290 women reported a substantial easing of pain, and 430 experienced orgasms – including 129 who had never had them before.
Only 5 per cent of the respondents suffered side effects, such as bleeding, and 20 women had less clitoral pleasure than before the procedure.
All surgery was performed in France, but Foldès says there are plans to train surgeons in Dakar, Senegal, where female genital mutilation is fiercely opposed by the NGO Tostan.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Orbert on June 13, 2012, 04:00:50 PM
It makes me think about the kind of person who would pioneer this type of procedure.  They have to have the medical expertise, the means to implement it (including everything that comes with that, including research, testing, etc.) and most of all, the drive and the will to do it in the first place.  You don't give up your regular practice or whatever research you were doing in order to pursue pioneering reconstructive surgery for a very specialized group of patients unless you really, really believe in it, and that you can make a difference.

:clap:
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: jsem on June 13, 2012, 04:19:41 PM
Wow. Chapeau to Foldès. Let's hope it develops much more.
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: slycordinator on June 13, 2012, 08:57:45 PM
On a similar note, I will never forget being amazed by the fact that one of my anatomy professors claimed when he worked as a plastic/reconstructive surgeon, he was the the most proud of the time he took a woman who'd gone through a traumatic vehicular accident and created a vagina for her.

Granted, he couldn't teach to save his life and I was thankful that he quit mid-semester and our dean took over...
Title: Re: Genital Mutilation in Britain
Post by: Odysseus on June 14, 2012, 04:38:51 AM
It makes me think about the kind of person who would pioneer this type of procedure.  They have to have the medical expertise, the means to implement it (including everything that comes with that, including research, testing, etc.) and most of all, the drive and the will to do it in the first place.  You don't give up your regular practice or whatever research you were doing in order to pursue pioneering reconstructive surgery for a very specialized group of patients unless you really, really believe in it, and that you can make a difference.

:clap:

I hadn't considered that, but having read your post I'd say your exactly right!