Genital Mutilation in Britain

[Cool Chris]

.... 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 ) 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. 

[Dark Castle]

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 
My original post was me saying I thought uncircumcised was unsightly, but I didn't want to offend anyone lol.

[Scheavo]

.... 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 ) 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.

[rumborak]

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

[robwebster]

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.

[rumborak]

Culture should enrich, not deprive. That's my rule of thumb.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

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.

[jsem]

I knew about circumcision from a very early age too. Probably before I was 7 or 8.

[pogoowner]

The topic never once came up in my household. I discovered it (that I was circumcised) on my own as a teenager.

[rumborak]

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

[GuineaPig]

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.

[j]

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

[rumborak]

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

[MondayMorningLunatic]

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?

[j]

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

[MondayMorningLunatic]

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.

[Dark Castle]

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.

[Super Dude]

Also smegma.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

Also smegma.

Women get smegma too, so is female circumcision OK?

[Super Dude]

I'm not doing this again, just read the first page.

[rumborak]

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

[Scheavo]

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.

[Orbert]

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.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

I think I'll end my involvement in this thread by posting this: 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:

"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.

[jammindude]

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.     

[MondayMorningLunatic]

Circumcised women can still orgasm:
https://allafrica.com/stories/201106280259.html
https://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-sex.htmll

"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

Sorry if this hurts you but facts are facts.

[jammindude]

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. 

[MondayMorningLunatic]

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?

[eric42434224]

Doctors in the Victorian Era promoted circumcision (both male and female) as a way to deter masturbation....

It doesn't work.

[jammindude]

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)   

[slycordinator]

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.

[Scheavo]

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.

[Cool Chris]

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.

[Odysseus]

I just found the relevant British legislation on this:

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

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...

[rumborak]

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

rumborak