Female Genital Mutilation on the rise in Europe

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher
Actually, I'm pretty sure females circumcized will be having sex less, so thereby having a lower transmission rate.

MrFun: If you shower once a day, hygeine is not a problem. I suppose, though, in your case, you may have taken the best course of action.

I shower every night, but please, resume your trolling.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Asher
Actually, I'm pretty sure females circumcized will be having sex less, so thereby having a lower transmission rate.

MrFun: If you shower once a day, hygeine is not a problem. I suppose, though, in your case, you may have taken the best course of action.

Actually they'll usually be having sex as often as the men who own them desire.

[Monk]

This thread is taking a turn for the worse.

[molly bloom]

In Australia various different Koori groupings practise a entirely differing kinds of genital 'alteration'- some male Kooris have a circumcision rite that effectively divides the penis into two from halfway along the shaft- it is said by those in the know to afford women more pleasure- so any heterosexual 'Poly posters interested in finding out, take an extended holiday in Australia for the purposes of research and let us all know.

I'll pass.

http://www.male-initiation.net/library/surround/eliade.html

The consequences of female genital mutilation as practised in sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt are very grave- from the initial operation where the implements used are frequently unsterilised you run the risk of blood poisoning, shock, haemorrhage, infection.

Afterwards when the girl/woman is sewn up you frequently find that she has urinary tract infections, problems with her periods, and of course that's all before she's opened up on her wedding night, or closed up again when her husband is away- sometimes even thorns (again unsterilised) are used to seal her up.

Clinics in Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt and Eritrea frequently report of severe health problems in pregnant women who have been mutilated by female circumcision- an operation usually instigated and carried out by a girl/woman's older female relatives.

I read of one man who justified female genital mutilation on the grounds that the forcible removal of the clitoris would thus prevent the woman losing control when riding a bicycle. He seemed otherwise sane and intelligent.

In the United Kingdom there have been regular warnings and campaigns about and against this obnoxious cultural practice, which has nothing to do with hygiene but serves only to deprive a woman of an organ associated with sexual pleasure.

[Az]

Now THAT's male genital mutilation!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom
In Australia various different Koori groupings practise a entirely differing kinds of genital 'alteration'- some male Kooris have a circumcision rite that effectively divides the penis into two from halfway along the shaft- it is said by those in the know to afford women more pleasure- so any heterosexual 'Poly posters interested in finding out, take an extended holiday in Australia for the purposes of research and let us all know.

I'll pass.

http://www.male-initiation.net/library/surround/eliade.html

The consequences of female genital mutilation as practised in sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt are very grave- from the initial operation where the implements used are frequently unsterilised you run the risk of blood poisoning, shock, haemorrhage, infection.

Afterwards when the girl/woman is sewn up you frequently find that she has urinary tract infections, problems with her periods, and of course that's all before she's opened up on her wedding night, or closed up again when her husband is away- sometimes even thorns (again unsterilised) are used to seal her up.

Clinics in Ethiopia, Sudan, Egypt and Eritrea frequently report of severe health problems in pregnant women who have been mutilated by female circumcision- an operation usually instigated and carried out by a girl/woman's older female relatives.

I read of one man who justified female genital mutilation on the grounds that the forcible removal of the clitoris would thus prevent the woman losing control when riding a bicycle. He seemed otherwise sane and intelligent.

In the United Kingdom there have been regular warnings and campaigns about and against this obnoxious cultural practice, which has nothing to do with hygiene but serves only to deprive a woman of an organ associated with sexual pleasure.

it's disgusting

[Asher]

Genital mutilation in males is still genital mutilation. You can call one circumcision and one genital mutilation, but you're just dressing up the male counterpart since it is not blatantly as bad.

Either way, you're mutilating your genitals so they are different than evolution they decided they should be.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher
Genital mutilation in males is still genital mutilation. You can call one circumcision and one genital mutilation, but you're just dressing up the male counterpart since it is not blatantly as bad.

Either way, you're mutilating your genitals so they are different than evolution they decided they should be.

I really must disagree -- the removal of excess surface skin from a man's d!ck is completely different in terms of trauma, chronic health problems, and suffering as compared to the much more horrible mutliation of a woman's sex organ.

[Asher]

Of course one is far more severe than the other, but they're both mutilating the genitals unnecessarily.

And both have people finding excuses for them, including medical doctors...

It's a double standard, because one is standard practice in your culture, and the other is not.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
It's a double standard, because one is standard practice in your culture, and the other is not.

No, it's a double standard because one harms the victim and the other does not. Male circumsicion is done when we are infants, so were aren't traumatized by the experience; nor is it done with a piece of broken bottle or rusty metal. We, also, are thoroughly capable of enjoying sex. It's the difference between having your ears pierced and having your ears removed.

There are somewhat comparable male practices, both among the aforementions Australian aborigines and the Yanomani tribe of the Amazan, who split the penis open from the base of the shaft to the tip, down to the urethra.

I imagine it's a form of birth control, since the area they live doesn't have enough much in the way of nutrition, and I can't figure out how they would get the semen into their wives.

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, it's a double standard because one harms the victim and the other does not. Male circumsicion is done when we are infants, so were aren't traumatized by the experience; nor is it done with a piece of broken bottle or rusty metal. We, also, are thoroughly capable of enjoying sex. It's the difference between having your ears pierced and having your ears removed.

It's not painful to get it done?
There's no risk of infections after it's done, considering you have exposed skin and likely a diaper on?
There's no reduced sensation due to the millions of nerve endings removed?

The original intent of both circumcisions were to prevent/discourage masturbation and lots of sex. Of course, the female one is far, far worse, but they're both stupid relics that should not be performed in a modern society.

The problem is, in countries like the US where the majority of men are circumcised, they're willing to keep doing it with their children because "it's normal". That...is sad.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
It's not painful to get it done?

I don't remember.

There's no risk of infections after it's done, considering you have exposed skin and likely a diaper on?

Maybe in the Jewish ceremony, but the rest of us have it done in a hospital.

There's no reduced sensation due to the millions of nerve endings removed?

Not so far as you'd notice. I know some guys complain about it, but since they never had their foreskin, it's not like they'd know. I know one man who had a circumcision later in life, for medical reasons, and he complained that there was now too much sensation. But we all know that a sample size of one is useless.

The original intent of both circumcisions were to prevent/discourage masturbation and lots of sex.

I don't disagree.

Of course, the female one is far, far worse, but they're both stupid relics that should not be performed in a modern society.

And it's because it's "far, far worse" that one is considered mutilation.

The problem is, in countries like the US where the majority of men are circumcised, they're willing to keep doing it with their children because "it's normal". That...is sad.

I don't disagree, but your point that we consider one mutilation and the other not merely for cultural reasons is false. I understand you feel for your poor snipped brothers, but we aren't traumatized and we can still greatly enjoy sex. In fact, I wonder how Victorians thought that circumcision would stop us from masturbating.

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

There's no risk of infections after it's done, considering you have exposed skin and likely a diaper on?

Maybe in the Jewish ceremony, but the rest of us have it done in a hospital.

You are really hospitalized for a week or two after to prevent infection?

And it's because it's "far, far worse" that one is considered mutilation.

mu·ti·late Audio pronunciation of "mutilation" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

It still fits.

I don't disagree, but your point that we consider one mutilation and the other not merely for cultural reasons is false. I understand you feel for your poor snipped brothers, but we aren't traumatized and we can still greatly enjoy sex.

Not all don't mind it. The BF has said several times that he wish his parents hadn't done it.

My major beef with circumcision of any sort, as it's practiced, is you don't let the person choose. Yiou're multilating their body without them having a say about it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
You are really hospitalized for a week or two after to prevent infection?

Penile infections among circumsized infants isn't a major problem.

It still fits.

Whatever.

Not all don't mind it. The BF has said several times that he wish his parents hadn't done it.

And he knows the difference it makes how?

My major beef with circumcision of any sort, as it's practiced, is you don't let the person choose.

Then why don't you say that instead of pussyfooting around with all these neglible reasons, and stop comparing a horrible, horrible practice to basicly cosmetic surgery.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

It's not painful to get it done?
There's no risk of infections after it's done, considering you have exposed skin and likely a diaper on?
There's no reduced sensation due to the millions of nerve endings removed?

The original intent of both circumcisions were to prevent/discourage masturbation and lots of sex. Of course, the female one is far, far worse, but they're both stupid relics that should not be performed in a modern society.

The problem is, in countries like the US where the majority of men are circumcised, they're willing to keep doing it with their children because "it's normal". That...is sad.

Che beat me to replying, but I still wanted to reply for myself.

First, I do not suffer from any chronic trauma from being circumcised as an infant.

Second, I enjoy full sensation and pleasure when having sex even though I'm circumcised.


And even if the original intent of circumcision is to inhibit sexual activity among men, apparently in my case, it did not succeed in doing so.