NationStates Jolt Archive

"A jury Wednesday found an Ethiopian immigrant guilty of the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter in what was believed to be the first criminal case in the United States involving the ancient African tradition."

entire article : http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/11/01/ap3137826.html

this is so hideous.

glad the guy'll be put away.

"A jury Wednesday found an Ethiopian immigrant guilty of the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter in what was believed to be the first criminal case in the United States involving the ancient African tradition."

entire article : http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/11/01/ap3137826.html

this is so hideous.

glad the guy'll be put away.

If the guy did it. Something smells funny here. The mother didn't notice for more than a year? The girl was two - still in diapers. She didn't notice her daughter had been mutilated for more than a year... a short while after her parents immigrated from Ethiopia... :confused:

I wish they were more forthcoming with the evidence in the articles I've seen about it.

I wish they were more forthcoming with the evidence in the articles I've seen about it.

To be honest.... I don't. Some things I just don't need nor want to know more details about.

Yeah, the mother not noticing for several years does seem odd. Still, it's a barbaric custom and one that ought to be suppressed. I'm as multicultural as the next person - more, in most cases - but barbarism.

To be honest.... I don't. Some things I just don't need nor want to know more details about.

I just want to know how they know it was the dad if the incident wasn't reported for several years? What evidence do they have that he did this? The girl says he did but she was two, hasn't lived with her dad for several years and is still very young and living with her mother who has divorced her dad. Smells bad.

Yeah, the mother not noticing for several years does seem odd. Still, it's a barbaric custom and one that ought to be suppressed. I'm as multicultural as the next person - more, in most cases - but barbarism.

Sure, I'm just saying that he may very well not have done it. Nothing I have read would make me sure. In fact, from what I have read I think the mother or her parents might have done it and are setting him up.

custom,culture or whatever-its all fucking bullshit.

You dont remove a 2yr old child's clitoris with fucking scizzors, you fucking savage piece of shit.

Hack his cock off with a broken bottle and offer it as a sacrafice to the god of flaccid scum-bags.

I just want to know how they know it was the dad if the incident wasn't reported for several years? What evidence do they have that he did this? The girl says he did but she was two, hasn't lived with her dad for several years and is still very young and living with her mother who has divorced her dad. Smells bad.

Indeed.

"During her father's trial, the girl, now 7, clutched a teddy bear as she testified on videotape that her father "cut me on my private part."

Something really smells odd. First off, the kid was likely coached as to what to say. Second, the memory of this seven year old has to be quite astounding, as most can't even remember what happened yesterday, let alone 5 years ago, and for a 7 year old to do... well it just seems suspect.

Second off, why didn't the mother report it earlier, I would assume she would have noticed it. Even a horrible mother would have noticed it easily.

More than enough room for reasonable doubt, really. I'm not bought on his guilt.

custom,culture or whatever-its all fucking bullshit.

You dont remove a 2yr old child's clitoris with fucking scizzors, you fucking savage piece of shit.

Hack his cock off with a broken bottle and offer it as a sacrafice to the god of flaccid scum-bags.

Problem is, the evidence against is rather shaky. I'm not sure whether or not he actually did do it, as the mother noticed after a year. What the hell? You should noticed blood and laceration pretty damn easily.

Indeed.

"During her father's trial, the girl, now 7, clutched a teddy bear as she testified on videotape that her father "cut me on my private part."

Something really smells odd. First off, the kid was likely coached as to what to say. Second, the memory of this seven year old has to be quite astounding, as most can't even remember what happened yesterday, let alone 5 years ago, and for a 7 year old to do... well it just seems suspect.

Second off, why didn't the mother report it earlier, I would assume she would have noticed it. Even a horrible mother would have noticed it easily.

More than enough room for reasonable doubt, really. I'm not bought on his guilt.

Thing is...its the women that usually do this kind of thing....Men mark the men, the women the women. One would have thought some testimony regarding the traditional practice in that area of Ethiopia/for that particular people was in order.

this is an example of why i think peoples religions and views shouldnt get in the way of what the law thinks is right for the kid.

I just want to know how they know it was the dad if the incident wasn't reported for several years? What evidence do they have that he did this? The girl says he did but she was two, hasn't lived with her dad for several years and is still very young and living with her mother who has divorced her dad. Smells bad.

I agree, but we're not on the jury, and they probably got a lot more evidence. Like photos and such.

Thing is...its the women that usually do this kind of thing....Men mark the men, the women the women. One would have thought some testimony regarding the traditional practice in that area of Ethiopia/for that particular people was in order.

Hmm, this is definately a good case when a cultural anthropologist would be in order to shed some light, such as pointing out this very fact. Doesn't necessarily need bring up cultural acceptance, so much as how and by whom it is done by. I would assume that in his culture, there is a reason why women circumcise the girls, and men the boys, and to break that norm probably wouldn't be acceptable.

Hell, the more one thinks of this case, the more room for reasonable doubt comes to light.

Remember people: Just because someone is convicted does not mean they are guilty. Juries make mistakes, and often times a "loaded" jury can be easily swayed.

I agree, but we're not on the jury, and they probably got a lot more evidence. Like photos and such.

That's why I wanted to know more about the evidence.

That's why I wanted to know more about the evidence.

...because you wanted to see photos of the deed? :shock:

I understand where you're coming from, seriously, but in the absence of evidence I can't conclude that the jury voted wrong.

...because you wanted to see photos of the deed? :shock:

I understand where you're coming from, seriously, but in the absence of evidence I can't conclude that the jury voted wrong.

Even if the deed is in line with the culture, but the gender of the person who did it isn't?

...because you wanted to see photos of the deed? :shock:

I understand where you're coming from, seriously, but in the absence of evidence I can't conclude that the jury voted wrong.

There is probably more evidence than that. Testimony would be great to know, as one would know the exact testimony, and get a better grasp of each story. This would be the biggest one for me, because I really want to hear an explanation as to how the mother did not notice for a bloody year(no pun intended).

From what has been revealed, there is ample room for reasonable doubt.

Even if the deed is in line with the culture, but the gender of the person who did it isn't?

Not every criminal does things according to a "culture" stereotype. There are many motivations, many types of criminals.

Even if the deed is in line with the culture, but the gender of the person who did it isn't?

Well the question arises as to what people of the culture believe would happen if a cultural norm is broken. Social control is very pervasive in many of the "traditional" parts of the world, with traditions ruling every day of your life. If there is some social belief that it is bad, and that the outcome would be bad, for a person to go against the norm, it can demonstrate, to a point, that the man may not have been the one to do it for cultural reasons.

It's by no means full-proof, but it can a useful tool when stacked up wtih other factors.

This is what the United States gets for allowing immigrants into their nation.

This is what the United States gets for allowing immigrants into their nation.

Thanks for that meaningless anti-immigrant drivel. I was waiting for some bigot to come along and use this example as an excuse to pound their jingoistic, xenophobic, nationalistic gavel.

I was really expecting MeansToAnEnd to say it first.

Of course you were, you can't expect everyone to deny the obvious because it's incorrect to do so.

I was really expecting MeansToAnEnd to say it first.

Or Ny Nordland.

I was really expecting MeansToAnEnd to say it first.

He was too busy creating his very own thread. He's much more noticable when he's the thread author, see.

Of course you were, you can't expect everyone to deny the obvious because it's incorrect to do so.

Of course, because national citizens NEVER commit crimes.

I was really expecting MeansToAnEnd to say it first.

Yeah, that is a good point... how long do you think it will take him to come and spew anti-immigration drivel? Or perhaps Dominic Lucifer is MTAE.

These is no way that little girl remenbers what happened to her 5 years ago.

Of course you were, you can't expect everyone to deny the obvious because it's incorrect to do so.

You do know that just as heinous things are done by natural born citizens, right? And far more frequently as well...

So your argument is down the drain.

Precisely my point, the United States has it's own problems to tend to without having to deal with this kind of garbage.

Of course you were, you can't expect everyone to deny the obvious because it's incorrect to do so.

I was expecting it because some people, namely uneducated little children like you, have no reasoning capabilities and jump to the most inane conclusions simply because you're feeling big and political. You calling those inane conclusions "obvious" doesn't make it so. It's nothing more than congratulatory self-fellatio. Get an actual argument or shut the fuck up. ;)

I just want to know how they know it was the dad if the incident wasn't reported for several years? What evidence do they have that he did this? The girl says he did but she was two, hasn't lived with her dad for several years and is still very young and living with her mother who has divorced her dad. Smells bad.

Also, the cutting is generally carried out by females, not males.

I don't see how that's a real argument considering that you ignored the issue and changed the subject by accusing me of being an uneducated child without having any real evidence to base that on. This is the sort of stupidity that democracy thrives on.

You do know that just as heinous things are done by natural born citizens, right? And far more frequently as well...

So your argument is down the drain.

well, obviously, no one is claiming that american citizens never commit crimes.

however, this particular crime of traditional AFRICAN genital mutilation is of course more likely to be commited by an immigrant

I don't see how that's a real argument considering that you ignored the issue and changed the subject by accusing me of being an uneducated child without having any real evidence to base that on. This is the sort of stupidity that democracy thrives on.

It's not my job to come up with a counter-argument when you don't have an argument. You blurted out a one-line response that, I'm sorry, is not an argument.

There is no "issue" here. This was the act of a criminal, and the fact that the criminal was an immigrant is no more relevant than if he were a Jew. Your reasoning is the equivalent of saying, "This is what you get when you let Jews in your country" in response to a criminal who was Jewish. THAT is stupid, bigoted reasoning, and for that I'm calling you a child. Either you're an actual child, or you just have the mind of one - take your pick.

No one is arguing it is not a heinous act, a custom that most certainly should not be allowed to be practiced in the US, or Canada, or any other country where these people immigrate to.

But the whole thing is fishy to the core. A much more likely scenario is that the mother, or the grandmother (even more likely the grandmother) did this and afraid of punishment, blamed the father.

Precisely my point, the United States has it's own problems to tend to without having to deal with this kind of garbage.

Wow, you are both racist and anti-xenophobic, in a sense. Kudos.

Your statement is still idiotic, but good for you for be a contradiction.

And are you MTAE? You sound like him.

Why write paragraphs for something so simply it can be stated in a sentence? You see, if more people would take the time to consider both sides of an argument before resorting to namecalling and accusations of bigotry then perhaps the system wouldn't fail as much as it does.

I'm not MTAE, nor am I racist. I'm of mixed race, though race has nothing to do with my argument.

I'm amazed there haven't been other convictions...when I searched for cases on this, all that came up were an astounding number of refugee cases based on the probability of being forced to undergo the procedure.

It's not my job to come up with a counter-argument when you don't have an argument. You blurted out a one-line response that, I'm sorry, is not an argument.

There is no "issue" here. This was the act of a criminal, and the fact that the criminal was an immigrant is no more relevant than if he were a Jew. Your reasoning is the equivalent of saying, "This is what you get when you let Jews in your country" in response to a criminal who was Jewish. THAT is stupid, bigoted reasoning, and for that I'm calling you a child. Either you're an actual child, or you just have the mind of one - take your pick.

we've gotten off topic. but whatever.

you're not quite right. if it were a more normal crime, he would, indeed, be babbling.

however, in this case, the man convicted is contained in a group that is far more likely to commit this particular crime than your average american.

it's like if someone sprayed a giant swastika on a synagogue wall. one could say "this is what we get for letting nazis in the country."

not comparing africans to nazis, but the point remains that some groups are more lkely to commit certain crimes.

well, obviously, no one is claiming that american citizens never commit crimes.

however, this particular crime of traditional AFRICAN genital mutilation is of course more likely to be commited by an immigrant

That's like saying that since Americans produce hotdogs, it's more likely for Americans to eat hotdogs. Really, any person is capable of this, and my response was that this is but one single case, and that if immigration was the problem, then we would see far more immigrant crimes occurring(which is untrue).

However the real question is two fold:

1)Did the father do it?(It is quite suspect as to whether he is guilty or not)
2)Why was it done, and to what measure was it tried to be "covered up". Understanding this could bring insight towards whom committed the crime. Like I've been saying, this was done against cultural norms(If it really was the man who did this), which to many is far worse than being convicted of any crime, it was not found to have occurred for a a year, and apparently didn't go to court until some time later. Something is up here, it really doesn't fit together all to well, and understand why this is done in the first place could shed some additional light on the issue.

That's like saying that since Americans produce hotdogs, it's more likely for Americans to eat hotdogs.

is that not true?

we've gotten off topic. but whatever.

you're not quite right. if it were a more normal crime, he would, indeed, be babbling.

however, in this case, the man convicted is contained in a group that is far more likely to commit this particular crime than your average american.

Sigh. Blacks are more likely to commit rapes than others, according to some statistics. Does that mean it would be valid for me to say, "This is what you get for allowing black people in your country?"

Why write paragraphs for something so simply it can be stated in a sentence? You see, if more people would take the time to consider both sides of an argument before resorting to namecalling and accusations of bigotry then perhaps the system wouldn't fail as much as it does.

You don't have an argument. I didn't ask for a "paragraph," I asked for an argument (note I didn't expect one). And I even indulged you by countering your little bigoted point as well - but you've completely ignored that just to make a rant about "namecalling." You poor, poor, martyred thing. Go cry.

is that not true?

Do you eat rice? How about bananas? Are either of those produced in your country?

Yeah. This is a stupid argument.

Indeed anybody is capable of doing this, as is a Jew capable of painting a Swatika on their own synagogue, but being capable of a crime and actually commiting it are far different. Thank you Funky Evil.

Indeed anybody is capable of doing this, as is a Jew capable of painting a Swatika on their own synagogue, but being capable of a crime and actually commiting it are far different. Thank you Funky Evil.

You haven't wiggled out of anything by the way.

Why write paragraphs for something so simply it can be stated in a sentence? You see, if more people would take the time to consider both sides of an argument before resorting to namecalling and accusations of bigotry then perhaps the system wouldn't fail as much as it does.

You made the point that we shouldn't allow immigrants in the US, then failed to show any evidence why. Before you go and shout that the OP is evidence, it isn't broad enough, its about one single sentence of one single person who happened to be an immigrant. Trying to take the actions of one individual and apply them to a massive group based on race is illogical methinks.

we've gotten off topic. but whatever.

you're not quite right. if it were a more normal crime, he would, indeed, be babbling.

however, in this case, the man convicted is contained in a group that is far more likely to commit this particular crime than your average american.

it's like if someone sprayed a giant swastika on a synagogue wall. one could say "this is what we get for letting nazis in the country."

not comparing africans to nazis, but the point remains that some groups are more lkely to commit certain crimes.

Question-

Statistically speaking, how many of these mutilations happen in the US each year? How many immigrants do we get? Compare the numbers, please.

One case is hardly a grounds to reach rash generalizations.

Also, like I said before, the man convicted may very well not have done it-It is against the cultural norm for men to perform this on a girl, the mother only seemed to bring this up when it was opportune to her, and quite frankly it is entirely shaky(On the evidence we have).

You made the point that we shouldn't allow immigrants in the US, then failed to show any evidence why. Before you go and shout that the OP is evidence, it isn't broad enough, its about one single sentence of one single person who happened to be an immigrant. Trying to take the actions of one individual and apply to a massive group based on race is illogical methinks.

Especially considering that a great many people coming from cultures that practice FGM go to the US or Canada to ESCAPE the practice...and yet, these anti-immigrant people would want to deny them that refuge. Nice.

My ass itches of spiders and I moan like a zebra in a meatgrinder when I rub my mothers spectacles on my genitals. I am a hopeless bigot terrorist who wants to destroy the US by corrupting their morals and values. Have a nice day.

"A jury Wednesday found an Ethiopian immigrant guilty of the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter in what was believed to be the first criminal case in the United States involving the ancient African tradition."

entire article : http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/11/01/ap3137826.html

this is so hideous.

glad the guy'll be put away.

Now all the US needs is a Male Genital Mutilation ban in order to get rid of the suggestion that male children are worthless compared to female children. Same goes for the UK.

My ass itches of spiders and I moan like a zebra in a meatgrinder when I rub my mothers spectacles on my genitals. I am a hopeless bigot terrorist who wants to destroy the US by corrupting their morals and values. Have a nice day.

Well thats one way to admit defeat................

you're looking at the issue from the inverse point of view than what i am suggesting.

let me clear up what i said.

Do all African immigrants practice genital mutilation? obviously not.

Are all cases of such genital mutilation performed by african immigrants? almost certainly yes.

Well thats one way to admit defeat................

I must admit, for a puppet he died rather quickly. Usually they stick around for a few pages.

Admit defeat? No my friend, I have declared victory. I would have argued on either side, it makes no difference to me. I have succeded in my goal of wasting a few minutes of your one and only life on an issue that none of us have any influence over.

My ass itches of spiders and I moan like a zebra in a meatgrinder when I rub my mothers spectacles on my genitals. I am a hopeless bigot terrorist who wants to destroy the US by corrupting their morals and values. Have a nice day.

Thanks, I will. :)

And may I recommend using lube? Might help with the itching. Then again you probably already know that. :D

I eat bananas.

I eat bananas.

Good. Now you can shut up.

These is no way that little girl remenbers what happened to her 5 years ago.

Why not? I have memories from ages 2-3, and I didn't have anything traumatic happen to me then. (and that would be 23-24 years ago for me)

you're looking at the issue from the inverse point of view than what i am suggesting.

let me clear up what i said.

Do all African immigrants practice genital mutilation? obviously not.

Are all cases of such genital mutilation performed by african immigrants? almost certainly yes.

Hardly. The practice is also common among some Middle Eastern cultures and, from what I understand, is enforced more by the father of the child than the women in said cultures.

From the sounds of things, it's not much different than circumsision. Both religious, both involve hacking up the genitals...

From the sounds of things, it's not much different than circumsision. Both religious, both involve hacking up the genitals...

Very few of those who practice circumcision do it for religious reasons. Also, the purpose of male circumcision (at least in the minds of most) is not to reduce sexual pleasure or to prevent "impurity."

While there may be similarities between the practices, there are rather large differences as well.

Why not? I have memories from ages 2-3, and I didn't have anything traumatic happen to me then. (and that would be 23-24 years ago for me)

Well, the cognitive ability of children that age is limited, as well as their ability to be influenced much greater. It can be difficult to formulate accurate memories at such an age, especially when considering the relative ease at which it is to "influence" said memories.

Also, tramatic events, especially when "introduced" to a young child can have an opposite effect of being accurate. It is not terribly difficult to manufacture memories in people, especially in young and impressionable children.

Of course, this is all conjecture, and as none of us know what was said or brought forth in the entirety of the hearing, it is impossible to say one way or the other for us.

Well, the cognitive ability of children that age is limited, as well as their ability to be influenced much greater. It can be difficult to formulate accurate memories at such an age, especially when considering the relative ease at which it is to "influence" said memories.

Also, tramatic events, especially when "introduced" to a young child can have an opposite effect of being accurate. It is not terribly difficult to manufacture memories in people, especially in young and impressionable children.

Of course, this is all conjecture, and as none of us know what was said or brought forth in the entirety of the hearing, it is impossible to say one way or the other for us.

Too right it's conjecture. Go ask a psychiatrist* (not a psychologist, they're generally crap). Children harmed in childhood can remain traumatised for years later, and can certainly remember many years later. They're not objects. And as evidenced by thorough investigation, what they say in regards to abuse (physical/sexual) is usually true, though it may be SLIGHTLY off (eg. "rape" instead of "attempted rape" being mentioned).

*But not one who doesn't realise Freud made up a load of crap.

Too right it's conjecture. Go ask a psychiatrist* (not a psychologist, they're generally crap). Children harmed in childhood can remain traumatised for years later, and can certainly remember many years later. They're not objects.

*But not one who doesn't realise Freud made up a load of crap.

Indeed they can remain traumatized, and unfortunately it is much easier to manipulate the memories of traumatized children one way or another. Infact, even in more or less rational adults one can manipulate, and create false, memories. Knowing the interview process that went on with the child would put a great deal of insight as to the true nature of her testimony(She may very well believe that her father did it, but this may be wrong as her memories may have manipulated).

And Freud was a load of crap. At least he openned up psychiatry as an actual science, and brought it to mainstream public. That's about where his contributions ended, though.

Well, the cognitive ability of children that age is limited, as well as their ability to be influenced much greater. It can be difficult to formulate accurate memories at such an age, especially when considering the relative ease at which it is to "influence" said memories.

Also, tramatic events, especially when "introduced" to a young child can have an opposite effect of being accurate. It is not terribly difficult to manufacture memories in people, especially in young and impressionable children.

Of course, this is all conjecture, and as none of us know what was said or brought forth in the entirety of the hearing, it is impossible to say one way or the other for us.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that she couldn't have been coached, or remembered wrong, or been told lies enough that she actually believes she remembers it happening. I was just pointing out that it is possible to have memories from that age.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that she couldn't have been coached, or remembered wrong, or been told lies enough that she actually believes she remembers it happening. I was just pointing out that it is possible to have memories from that age.

Ah, gotchya. If only we had a "Buddy Jesus" emoticon for these moments.

I mean...not to be rude here, but it's basically the same thing for this and circumsision. It doesn't matter. It's cutting up a defenseless child's bits. It doesn't change anything. You wanna convict every single parent whose circumcised their child of mutilation? Or maybe the doctors who performed the act? Maybe the kid can just sue his own parents for "emotional distress and pain and suffering" that's the american dream. Each new generation sues the heck out of the previous one.

Indeed they can remain traumatized, and unfortunately it is much easier to manipulate the memories of traumatized children one way or another. Infact, even in more or less rational adults one can manipulate, and create false, memories. Knowing the interview process that went on with the child would put a great deal of insight as to the true nature of her testimony(She may very well believe that her father did it, but this may be wrong as her memories may have manipulated).


true, but as numerous cases of abuse have suggested (when investigated), stuff children say about abuse is usually true. It would appear that normally the most they are told with regard to manipulation concerning abuse is "if you tell anyone than _____ will happen to _______" and "it's normal".

I mean...not to be rude here, but it's basically the same thing for this and circumsision. It doesn't matter. It's cutting up a defenseless child's bits. It doesn't change anything. You wanna convict every single parent whose circumcised their child of mutilation? Or maybe the doctors who performed the act? Maybe the kid can just sue his own parents for "emotional distress and pain and suffering" that's the american dream. Each new generation sues the heck out of the previous one.

Suing for emotional and physical abuse is a dam good reason. Cutting up children's bits is sick, however much you try to justify it with "religious" reasons. *wonders how many muslims know the koran actually says sweet FA about circumcision*

Suing for emotional and physical abuse is a dam good reason. Cutting up children's bits is sick, however much you try to justify it with "religious" reasons. *wonders how many muslims know the koran actually says sweet FA about circumcision*

*Wonders if he realizes how he just targetted one religion, despite the fact the practice is just as common with jews and christians*

Admit defeat? No my friend, I have declared victory. I would have argued on either side, it makes no difference to me. I have succeded in my goal of wasting a few minutes of your one and only life on an issue that none of us have any influence over.

Only life? HAH! You may have wasted part of one's life, but not one's only. We are reincarnated because... well... I'm the High Priestess of Who Gives a Load of Flying Horsefeathers and my religion says so! :p

I mean...not to be rude here, but it's basically the same thing for this and circumsision.

Except for the fact that people have been told and believed that circumcision has real medical benefits. Do we want to sue parents for every action they take that is believed to have medical benefits and then thinking changes?

Should we sue all those parents who had their kids' tonsils removed now that we know they aren't necessarily vestigial?

There is a difference between doing what is generally accepted by the medical community and taking dirty scissors to a child's genitals because you don't want her to ever have sex.

From the sounds of things, it's not much different than circumsision. Both religious, both involve hacking up the genitals...

But at least a man who has been circumsized can still enjoy sex. This would be more like a man being castrated, as far as being able to enjoy sex.

*Wonders if he realizes how he just targetted one religion, despite the fact the practice is just as common with jews and christians*

But passages of the torah and the the Bible can actually be interpreted as specifically saying you should circumcise your kid (though people who interpret them that way should learn to read properly).

Except for the fact that people have been told and believed that circumcision has real medical benefits. Do we want to sue parents for every action they take that is believed to have medical benefits and then thinking changes?

Should we sue all those parents who had their kids' tonsils removed now that we know they aren't necessarily vestigial?

There is a difference between doing what is generally accepted by the medical community and taking dirty scissors to a child's genitals because you don't want her to ever have sex.

Studies have also shown the exact opposite - which do you believe? Do you risk giving your child trauma when there are plenty of health uncircumcised people, just so you can chop a bit of his dick off, just IN CASE there are a few medical benefits?

Female genital mutilation is generally done for the same general reasons as male genital mutilation, with only slight differences. it's not to do with sex usually.

But at least a man who has been circumsized can still enjoy sex...

Doesn't mean he's gonna be happy with having the genital mutilation forced on him in the first place. plus the God-given foreskin is there for a reason.

Studies have also shown the exact opposite - which do you believe?

The exact opposite of what?

Do you risk giving your child trauma when there are plenty of health uncircumcised people, just so you can chop a bit of his dick off, just IN CASE there are a few medical benefits?

What on earth makes you think I would circumcize my child? The studies suggest that the few medical benefits that can be obtained through circumcision can be duplicated by good hygeine and safe sex practices.

However, the fact remains that, for at least a generation, the medical community told parents (and believed) that circumcision would cause health benefits, and that it was unhealthy to skip it. This has never been true of FGM, the purpose of which has always been to reduce or eliminate pleasure during sex and to keep women virgins as long as possible.

Female genital mutilation is generally done for the same general reasons as male genital mutilation, with only slight differences. it's not to do with sex usually.

You haven't looked into FGM much, have you? The reasons are pretty much always sex. The entire purpose of the practice is to reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure and to keep a woman "pure" until her wedding night.

Doesn't mean he's gonna be happy with having the genital mutilation forced on him in the first place. plus the God-given foreskin is there for a reason.
Didn't say he'd be thrilled. Just that he's still sexually funtional.

Studies have also shown the exact opposite - which do you believe? Do you risk giving your child trauma when there are plenty of health uncircumcised people, just so you can chop a bit of his dick off, just IN CASE there are a few medical benefits?

Female genital mutilation is generally done for the same general reasons as male genital mutilation, with only slight differences. it's not to do with sex usually.

Well, circumcision has medical benefits in areas where sanitation is not prevalent. It's really a tradition that has been kept in first world nations for various beliefs and what not. Also, usually it's done on infants, when sensitivity in the area is generally lower than in more matured adults.

But meh. Whatever.

The exact opposite of what?

Of the studies that show there are health BENEFITS.


What on earth makes you think I would circumcize my child? The studies suggest that the few medical benefits that can be obtained through circumcision can be duplicated by good hygeine and safe sex practices.

I don't. I meant "you" in a general sense.

However, the fact remains that, for at least a generation, the medical community told parents (and believed) that circumcision would cause health benefits, and that it was unhealthy to skip it. This has never been true of FGM, the purpose of which has always been to reduce or eliminate pleasure during sex and to keep women virgins as long as possible.

It has at one time been thought FGM was ok. But just because a person says something is healthy when it obviously involves pain and is not a necessary medical procudure, that doesn't mean parents should automatically believe it. After all, how many parents DON'T trust their doctor when he/she insist there is nothing wrong with their kid but the parent *knows* there is (and is often/always right). And considering that FGM is illegal, I see no excuse for a parent choosing to have MGM on their child just because someone says to.



You haven't looked into FGM much, have you? The reasons are pretty much always sex. The entire purpose of the practice is to reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure and to keep a woman "pure" until her wedding night.

Admittedly not. But I have a bit, and religious reasons are cited a lot.

Didn't say he'd be thrilled. Just that he's still sexually funtional.

Sounds kinky.

Well, circumcision has medical benefits in areas where sanitation is not prevalent. It's really a tradition that has been kept in first world nations for various beliefs and what not. Also, usually it's done on infants, when sensitivity in the area is generally lower than in more matured adults.

But meh. Whatever.

No it doesn't. Look at some other studies instead of just pro-circ ones. It's about time someone did a MASSIVE non-biased study. http://www.nocirc.org

Infants still feel pain - lots of it. And even if they didn't, there's still no excuse for chopping bits of them off. Sure they may be happy with it in later years. Then again, they may feel traumatised. Or extremely disturbed. Or hate you. You've no idea how they will feel later, so there's no point doing it unless it's absolutely medically NECESSARY (as opposed to PREFERABLE for the parents/society).

Of the studies that show there are health BENEFITS.

The opposite of that would be to demonstrate that there are, instead, detrimental health effects. What studies have shown this?

It has at one time been thought FGM was ok.

Not in most cultures.

But just because a person says something is healthy when it obviously involves pain and is not a necessary medical procudure, that doesn't mean parents should automatically believe it.

No, it doesn't. But most parents don't have the expertise or the knowledge to argue with their doctors, especially when it was pretty much the health profession as a whole that would tell them that. These days, parents have more access to information than they ever have, and that might be part of the reason that circumcision is now being looked at as an unnecessary procedure by a great deal of people.

Admittedly not. But I have a bit, and religious reasons are cited a lot.

And those religious religions always boil down to "helping" a woman preserve her purity and resist temptation. Religious reasons for male circumcision, on the other hand, are generally cited as a mark of the religious man - a covenant with God. Both are borne out of religion and neither, in my opinion, is a good reason to do it (if a man wants to get circumcized as a symbol of his religion, I figure he should do it when he's old enough to have one). However, it is fairly clear that the reasoning behind them is quite different.

The various FGM practices are also, generally, much worse physically. While there is a semi-equivalent version (removing the clitoral hood is somewhat similar to removing the foreskin), that is not a very common version. FGM practices often involve removing the clitoris altogether. In some areas, FGM involves removal of the clitoris (essentially by "shaving" it off) and then sewing the labia together, leaving only a small hole for urination. The woman then has to be quite literally ripped back open on her wedding night, but hey, at least they know she's a virgin, right?

No it doesn't. Look at some other studies instead of just pro-circ ones. It's about time someone did a MASSIVE non-biased study. http://www.nocirc.org

I haven't read any biased studies - at least not clearly biased ones. Of course, I hardly think that the organization we should get to do a non-biased study is one clearly biased against circumcision.

From the studies that have been published, two things are clear.

1 - STDs transfer more readily to the uncircumcized. Of course, this makes perfect biological sense. Both bacteria and viruses can pass more easily across a mucous membrane than keratinized skin, and men with intact foreskins have much more mucous membrane surface area that could be exposed. Of course, it is also true that a man who practices safe sex is unlikely to have to worry about this issue.

2 - In the absence of good hygeine practices, an uncircumcized male is more likely to contract various infections. Again, makes perfect biological sense. If a man isn't properly cleaning his penis, and he has a foreskin that can trap dirt, debris, bacteria, etc., he is going to be more likely to have something go wrong. Of course, this difference can be counteracted by dispelling the idea that talking to your son about his penis is "icky" or "dirty" and making sure that parents teach their sons to properly clean themselves.

I haven't read any biased studies - at least not clearly biased ones. Of course, I hardly think that the organization we should get to do a non-biased study is one clearly biased against circumcision.

From the studies that have been published, two things are clear.

1 - STDs transfer more readily to the uncircumcized. Of course, this makes perfect biological sense. Both bacteria and viruses can pass more easily across a mucous membrane than keratinized skin, and men with intact foreskins have much more mucous membrane surface area that could be exposed. Of course, it is also true that a man who practices safe sex is unlikely to have to worry about this issue.

2 - In the absence of good hygeine practices, an uncircumcized male is more likely to contract various infections. Again, makes perfect biological sense. If a man isn't properly cleaning his penis, and he has a foreskin that can trap dirt, debris, bacteria, etc., he is going to be more likely to have something go wrong. Of course, this difference can be counteracted by dispelling the idea that talking to your son about his penis is "icky" or "dirty" and making sure that parents teach their sons to properly clean themselves.

You, my friend, are talking bollocks. I've yet to find an unbiased study (either way) regarding male genital mutilation (I refuse to dress it up with fancy names like "circumcision"). As long as there is a decent level of hygiene, a male who has not been genitally mutilated is no more likely to pick up any kind of infection. I live in a country where genital mutilation is not the norm, and incidents of infections are no more than a country of roughly the same size where genital mutilation is the norm. Where there are not good hygiene practices, it's the practices that need to be addressed, not just chopping parts of people off cus it's easier - do you want to start chopping off ears now because poor hygiene can lead to ear infections? Or feet because of foot infections? Heck, you might as well just chop off every part that could get infected. Or, you could be sensible, and deal with the issues related to hygiene, such as no water pumps, not enough foreign aid, etc.

Hmm, let's see. Female Genital Mutilation involves removing the whole clitoris so it is impossible for a woman to receive pleasure during sex.

"Male Genital Mutilation" involves removing the foreskin and doesn't impair ability to receive pleasure during sex.

But hey, there's always someone - usually someone who has never had a circumcision, or someone who has and is insecure and ashamed about it - who thinks the two are equivalent.

It's a shame that someone has to completely hijack a thread with his particular agenda whenever he feels like it.

If the guy did it. Something smells funny here. The mother didn't notice for more than a year? The girl was two - still in diapers. She didn't notice her daughter had been mutilated for more than a year... a short while after her parents immigrated from Ethiopia... :confused:

I wish they were more forthcoming with the evidence in the articles I've seen about it.I'm sure the wife is like that too.
It is believed that it was really the whole family. Personally they should just chop off the father's you know, then let him go.
(That's what he did to the girl basicly.)

Hmm, let's see. Female Genital Mutilation involves removing the whole clitoris so it is impossible for a woman to receive pleasure during sex.

"Male Genital Mutilation" involves removing the foreskin and doesn't impair ability to receive pleasure during sex.

But hey, there's always someone - usually someone who has never had a circumcision, or someone who has and is insecure and ashamed about it - who thinks the two are equivalent.

It's a shame that someone has to completely hijack a thread with his particular agenda whenever he feels like it.
True it's sad. If they were the "same thing" then many males wouldn't have anything literaly.

Hmm, let's see. Female Genital Mutilation involves removing the whole clitoris so it is impossible for a woman to receive pleasure during sex.

"Male Genital Mutilation" involves removing the foreskin and doesn't impair ability to receive pleasure during sex.

But hey, there's always someone - usually someone who has never had a circumcision, or someone who has and is insecure and ashamed about it - who thinks the two are equivalent.

It's a shame that someone has to completely hijack a thread with his particular agenda whenever he feels like it.

I was circumcised when I was a few years old (medical reasons). Now, I can’t speak for the sex act, because I’ve never tried it with an intact foreskin, but I sure as hell wish I was still intact.

No, circumcision is not quite the same as FGM, but it’s mutilation all the same. And it’s a sick society that just shrugs and goes “it’s just a piece of skin…”!

If only they were allowed to let the punishment fit the crime...

Studies have also shown the exact opposite - which do you believe? Do you risk giving your child trauma when there are plenty of health uncircumcised people, just so you can chop a bit of his dick off, just IN CASE there are a few medical benefits?

Female genital mutilation is generally done for the same general reasons as male genital mutilation, with only slight differences. it's not to do with sex usually.

i think circumcision for children. should be banned. on the basis that one should alter thier body perminantly until they are 18. unless for life threatening reasons.
also they have done studies that when removed, the are that suppose to be under the foreskin hardens, like a calus. and has less feeling in it.

Admittedly not. But I have a bit, and religious reasons are cited a lot.

FGM is VERY different from Circumcism.

It varies in severity, but the goal of it is to either:

a. Remove all sexual pleasure from the woman.
b. Physically prevent the woman from being able to have sex.

In the worse cases they remove the cliterous, the sides of the vagina, sew the opening of the vagina shut except for a small gap for urine and bind the girls legs togerther while the cuts heal to seal the vagina. In the worse instances when the girl is married off her husband has to literally cut/tear her open in order to be able to have sex with her.


An equivalnce in male circumcism would perhaps be they slice off half the penis and sew what remains onto the testicles making it heal attacked to the testicles.

FGM is VERY different from Circumcism.

It varies in severity, but the goal of it is to either:

a. Remove all sexual pleasure from the woman.
b. Physically prevent the woman from being able to have sex.

In the worse cases they remove the cliterous, the sides of the vagina, sew the opening of the vagina shut except for a small gap for urine and bind the girls legs togerther while the cuts heal to seal the vagina. In the worse instances when the girl is married off her husband has to literally cut/tear her open in order to be able to have sex with her.


An equivalnce in male circumcism would perhaps be they slice off half the penis and sew what remains onto the testicles making it heal attacked to the testicles.

Indeed.

Look, I understand that some guys are really upset about circumcision, and it's certainly a valid topic of discussion. But please, if you have any honesty or compassion whatsoever, do NOT compare circumcision to FGM. That's like comparing a paper cut to having your finger amputated.

Indeed.

Look, I understand that some guys are really upset about circumcision, and it's certainly a valid topic of discussion. But please, if you have any honesty or compassion whatsoever, do NOT compare circumcision to FGM. That's like comparing a paper cut to having your finger amputated.

as fgm is worse. circumcision is still legal in most countries.

From the studies that have been published, two things are clear.

2 - In the absence of good hygeine practices, an uncircumcized male is more likely to contract various infections. Again, makes perfect biological sense. If a man isn't properly cleaning his penis, and he has a foreskin that can trap dirt, debris, bacteria, etc., he is going to be more likely to have something go wrong. Of course, this difference can be counteracted by dispelling the idea that talking to your son about his penis is "icky" or "dirty" and making sure that parents teach their sons to properly clean themselves.

There are plenty of studies either way. But in response to your point 2 - I can only assume you are circumcised, or you have very suspect attitudes to personal hygine.

(are you male or female - I lose track)

Dirt and Debris? How the hell do they get there? Don't you wash your underwear? What are you sticking your penis into?
Bacteria? - You know you have millions of bacterias all over your body even when clean?
Washing? Even if a guy does not shower/bathe then every time he takes a piss it cleans out under the foreskin (urine sterilizes... which is why unless things go UP your uretha you don't get infections caused by the urine passing through it)

It takes almost NO effort to clean under the foreskin... it's not really that dirty.

The arguement based on hyginene is almost like argueing we should cut eyelids off so you don't have to worry about cleaning our eyeballs.

"A jury Wednesday found an Ethiopian immigrant guilty of the genital mutilation of his 2-year-old daughter in what was believed to be the first criminal case in the United States involving the ancient African tradition."


Yep. Here in Italy eradicating some immigrants' traditions about genital mutilation is also a problem. The only solution is putting the guilty in jail and create better integration, so womens' rights will become a part of the immigrates' tradition, too.

These is no way that little girl remenbers what happened to her 5 years ago.

I remember falling down the stairs a month after my first birthday, you better believe she'd remember getting her clit chopped off.

Indeed.

Look, I understand that some guys are really upset about circumcision, and it's certainly a valid topic of discussion. But please, if you have any honesty or compassion whatsoever, do NOT compare circumcision to FGM. That's like comparing a paper cut to having your finger amputated.

The mildest cases of female 'circumcision' are roughly similar to male circumcision, a cut on the hood.

The more severe ones are more on par with another tradition practised in Africa and some other places to men, subincision, where they cut the head of your wang open.

I was circumcised when I was a few years old (medical reasons). Now, I can’t speak for the sex act, because I’ve never tried it with an intact foreskin, but I sure as hell wish I was still intact.
Why?

No, circumcision is not quite the same as FGM, but it’s mutilation all the same. And it’s a sick society that just shrugs and goes “it’s just a piece of skin…”!

Our society may be sick, but not because circumcision isn't seen as the apalling "mutilation" that a few people do. More like because our civilization came up with things like the electric chair, or gas chamber, or genetically engineered biological warfare contaminants...

Why?

Because I’m missing a part of me. A part that should be there. Because I worry that I might be missing out on something. Because I’m less than a whole man. Because I think it’s rather ugly when compared to a normal penis.


Our society may be sick, but not because circumcision isn't seen as the apalling "mutilation" that a few people do. More like because our civilization came up with things like the electric chair, or gas chamber, or genetically engineered biological warfare contaminants...

How can you say that chopping bits of a girl’s genitalia is mutilation, and at the same time say that chopping bits of a boy’s is not?

Because I’m missing a part of me. A part that should be there. Because I worry that I might be missing out on something. Because I’m less than a whole man. Because I think it’s rather ugly when compared to a normal penis.

Huh. Well, I have a circumcision and I don't feel that way. So I suggest the problem is your own emotional and psychological reaction.

I mean you don't find people who've had their appendixes or wisdom teeth removed thinking as you do.


How can you say that chopping bits of a girl’s genitalia is mutilation, and at the same time say that chopping bits of a boy’s is not?

Because in terms of actual effect on ability to orgasm, the former removes it completely. Cuts off. From pleasure. Forever. The latter does not at all.

You, my friend, are talking bollocks. I've yet to find an unbiased study (either way) regarding male genital mutilation (I refuse to dress it up with fancy names like "circumcision"). As long as there is a decent level of hygiene, a male who has not been genitally mutilated is no more likely to pick up any kind of infection.

How can you say I am "talking bollocks" and then repeat exactly the same thing I just said?

I live in a country where genital mutilation is not the norm, and incidents of infections are no more than a country of roughly the same size where genital mutilation is the norm. Where there are not good hygiene practices, it's the practices that need to be addressed, not just chopping parts of people off cus it's easier

And once again, you try to argue with me by repeating exactly what I said.

Is reading really that hard for you?


There are plenty of studies either way. But in response to your point 2 - I can only assume you are circumcised, or you have very suspect attitudes to personal hygine.

No, I'm not circumcized. I'm a girl. But I have read the studies because I intend to have children, and I'll be involved in these decisions when it comes to my own children.

Meanwhile, please do show me the studies claiming that viruses and bacterial infections do not pass more easily through mucous membranes than keratinized skin, specifically those tissues on the foreskin. Do show me the studies claiming that, in the absence of good hygeine practices, men are all equally likely to contract infections. I'd like to see them, since they would defy both what is known about biology and all semblance of common sense.

Dirt and Debris? How the hell do they get there? Don't you wash your underwear? What are you sticking your penis into?

Dirt and debris are going to get onto every part of your body no matter what you do. The problem comes in when it isn't washed off. Ever hear of smegma?

With a circumcized penis, even without diligently washing it, it will most likely get fairly clean in the shower. With a circumcized penis, a man or boy must actually pull back his foreskin and make an effort to clean it. Is that a bad thing? No, of course not. But in a society where people think that anything having to do with a penis is sexual, who is going to teach a young boy how to properly clean it? Hence the reason that I attacked the attitudes.

Bacteria? - You know you have millions of bacterias all over your body even when clean?

Indeed. But build-ups are much more likely to occur if you don't get clean, aren't they?

Washing? Even if a guy does not shower/bathe then every time he takes a piss it cleans out under the foreskin (urine sterilizes... which is why unless things go UP your uretha you don't get infections caused by the urine passing through it)

The urethra is inside the penis, not between the penis and the foreskin. Are you telling me that a man intentionally pees into his foreskin to clean it out? That doesn't sound very feasible to me.

It takes almost NO effort to clean under the foreskin... it's not really that dirty.

And yet that effort is one that many do not make, because touching the penis at all is "icky" or sexual. I've met men who think that actually washing their penis is a bad thing, that they shouldn't touch it except to pee or have sex. Does that make sense? Of course not, but the attitude is there.

The arguement based on hyginene is almost like argueing we should cut eyelids off so you don't have to worry about cleaning our eyeballs.

Wow, another person who clearly can't read. I very clearly stated that I am AGAINST institutionalized circumcision on the hygeine issue. I clearly stated that a better option would be to teach a young boy to properly clean himself. Is it really that hard for you to read?

No, I'm not circumcized. I'm a girl. But I have read the studies because I intend to have children, and I'll be involved in these decisions when it comes to my own children.
Ah.. I could not remember if you were male or female - seeing as you do not have a penis i think it is fair enough you do not have experience of penis cleaning.

As someone who is not circumcised can I try to dispel some of the things you seem to think?

NOTE: This may be too much information for some.


Dirt and debris are going to get onto every part of your body no matter what you do. The problem comes in when it isn't washed off. Ever hear of smegma?
The foreskin normally covers the whole head, except when erect. Any dirt on it will be on the outside of the foreskin. Where the foreskin opens while the penis is flaccid it normally extends past the end of the penis and is practically closed over the end. Dirt will not get in easily. In contrast the head of a circumcised penis is constantly exposed to any dirt in underwear/etc and is constantly rubbing against clothing as is the opening to the uretha.

With a circumcized penis, even without diligently washing it, it will most likely get fairly clean in the shower. With a circumcized penis, a man or boy must actually pull back his foreskin and make an effort to clean it. Is that a bad thing? No, of course not. But in a society where people think that anything having to do with a penis is sexual, who is going to teach a young boy how to properly clean it? Hence the reason that I attacked the attitudes.
Not many young men have any trouble in the shower pulling their forskin back. They do it pretty willingly, often while jacking off. Even aside from the sexual aspect - I was never told about cleaning it - it just happens.


The urethra is inside the penis, not between the penis and the foreskin. Are you telling me that a man intentionally pees into his foreskin to clean it out? That doesn't sound very feasible to me.
Except when erect the foreskin normally extends past the end of the penis, you have two options when peeing - pull it back and pee or dont. If you dont then the pee will rince out the inside of the foreskin. If you are holding it in a way that it does not you are likely peeing on your shoes.


And yet that effort is one that many do not make, because touching the penis at all is "icky" or sexual. I've met men who think that actually washing their penis is a bad thing, that they shouldn't touch it except to pee or have sex. Does that make sense? Of course not, but the attitude is there.

I would hope that circumcised or not that you do not raise your kids with that attitude.

Ah.. I could not remember if you were male or female - seeing as you do not have a penis i think it is fair enough you do not have experience of penis cleaning.

Never washed another person before, eh? Never taken care of children? Never read anything at all regarding the issue?

Now, I'll admit that I haven't cleaned an intact penis, because I've honestly never come into contact with one, but I have read up on the differences, specifically so that I can deal with them in the future.

As someone who is not circumcised can I try to dispel some of the things you seem to think?

Sure, unless you're going to try and convince me that men intentionally urinate into their foreskins.

The foreskin normally covers the whole head, except when erect. Any dirt on it will be on the outside of the foreskin.

The labia are normally closed too. That hardly means that no dirt gets in.

Not many young men have any trouble in the shower pulling their forskin back. They do it pretty willingly, often while jacking off. Even aside from the sexual aspect - I was never told about cleaning it - it just happens.

You don't live in the society I do, apparently. Like I said, I've known more than one grown man who won't even touch his penis to clean it, because that's an "icky" thing to do. ((Note: I've known women who are the same way, who can't imagine that you might actually have to actively clean the vaginal area)).

Except when erect the foreskin normally extends past the end of the penis, you have two options when peeing - pull it back and pee or dont. If you dont then the pee will rince out the inside of the foreskin. If you are holding it in a way that it does not you are likely peeing on your shoes.

Having seen uncircumcized penises, the opposite seems much more true. If the head is not exposed, peeing on your shoes is going to be much more likely.

I would hope that circumcised or not that you do not raise your kids with that attitude.

Of course not. I have made it exceedingly clear that I think it is a stupid attitude to hold - and a dangerous one.

I've been in the filthiest stagnant swill swamps for extended periods and never had much trouble keeping the cock and balls relatively clean.

The dirt issue is bullshit.

I've been in the filthiest stagnant swill swamps for extended periods and never had much trouble keeping the cock and balls relatively clean.

The dirt issue is bullshit.

Are you still dating her ro did you break up? :confused:

I've been in the filthiest stagnant swill swamps for extended periods and never had much trouble keeping the cock and balls relatively clean.

The dirt issue is bullshit.

Precisely. It all boils down to actually making an effort at good hygeine. If the effort is made, it simply isn't an issue.

You don't live in the society I do, apparently. Like I said, I've known more than one grown man who won't even touch his penis to clean it, because that's an "icky" thing to do. ((Note: I've known women who are the same way, who can't imagine that you might actually have to actively clean the vaginal area)).
Weird. Uck.

I'm going to guess you're in the US?

If not this point still stands. I think a part of your opinion is based on a cultural background. In the US where circumcism is very common with I think 60% of men circumcised there is a lot of research that shows that it has medical benefits. In the UK where less than 1% of men are circumcised the medical profession generally accepted a while ago that there were no benefits. I think a cultural bais influences both views. Personally I think your opinion of the difficulty of cleaning under the foreskin seriously overstates the problem - and it sounds like this opinion is basd in your cultural background. It does not require careful cleaning, or effort to clean. This is from hands on experience. If someone is of the persuasion that their hygiene is so low they get problems with it I don't think circumcism will address their major problems. You really do seem to be overstating the cleaning issue.


Having seen uncircumcized penises, the opposite seems much more true. If the head is not exposed, peeing on your shoes is going to be much more likely.

I meant if you dont pull it back and you hold the penis about midway you'll end up with warm wet shoes.
If you hold it at the end without pulling back you'll have good aim and it naturally rinses.
If you pull it back this obviously does not happen so well. Personally I prefer not to play about with my foreskin too much when peeing in a pub toilet with two othr guys holding their penises either side of me.



I've been in the filthiest stagnant swill swamps for extended periods and never had much trouble keeping the cock and balls relatively clean.

The dirt issue is bullshit.


Are you still dating her or did you break up?
Awesome.

I know this is a late response, but I'm going to make it anyways.

Weird. Uck.

I'm going to guess you're in the US?

Yup.

If not this point still stands. I think a part of your opinion is based on a cultural background. In the US where circumcism is very common with I think 60% of men circumcised there is a lot of research that shows that it has medical benefits. In the UK where less than 1% of men are circumcised the medical profession generally accepted a while ago that there were no benefits. I think a cultural bais influences both views.

Actually, very little of the research I've read has been based in the US, and some of it wasn't related directly to circumcision at all. Some was in Africa, some in Europe. At least one study directly addressed the question of whether viruses could pass more easily into the mucous membrane cells of the foreskin than the keratinized skin on the outside or on the circumcized penis.

You seem to think I've focused on specific studies - or biased ones at all. What I have said here is basically common sense, and you seem to be all up in arms about it, even though I have explicitly stated that I do not see it as a reason to support routine circumcision.

Personally I think your opinion of the difficulty of cleaning under the foreskin seriously overstates the problem - and it sounds like this opinion is basd in your cultural background. It does not require careful cleaning, or effort to clean.

Again, you seem to be having a major knee-jerk reaction here. I never said that it took a great deal of effort to clean. As I understand it, you basically just have to peel back the foreskin and make sure you clean under it. Doesn't sound any more difficult to me than cleaning the vaginal area or cleaning in between my toes. But the fact remains that there are and have been many who don't even make that minimal effort. My point was simply that, in the absence of good hygeine - in other words, in the absence of any effort to clean the penis, infection is more likely in the intact penis. And, like I said before, this is just common sense. The build-up of smegma and the surface area of mucous membrane on the foreskin can facilitate infection. But, like I said before, it is much, much, much easier to just stay clean.

This is from hands on experience. If someone is of the persuasion that their hygiene is so low they get problems with it I don't think circumcism will address their major problems. You really do seem to be overstating the cleaning issue.

I made it exceedingly clear in my first post that it isn't an issue at all. As long as a rather simple effort at good hygeine is made, it doesn't matter in the least. Hence the reason I said we should just shoot for good hygeine, rather than routine circumcision.

FGM is VERY different from Circumcism.

An equivalnce in male circumcism would perhaps be they slice off half the penis and sew what remains onto the testicles making it heal attacked to the testicles.

You had fun making people cring with that discription, didn't you...

Indeed.

"During her father's trial, the girl, now 7, clutched a teddy bear as she testified on videotape that her father "cut me on my private part."

Something really smells odd. First off, the kid was likely coached as to what to say. Second, the memory of this seven year old has to be quite astounding, as most can't even remember what happened yesterday, let alone 5 years ago, and for a 7 year old to do... well it just seems suspect.

Second off, why didn't the mother report it earlier, I would assume she would have noticed it. Even a horrible mother would have noticed it easily.

More than enough room for reasonable doubt, really. I'm not bought on his guilt.



You don´t really believe that the mother didn´t know, do you?

In my country that tradition is banned by law, but is still done

Furthermore I dont belive, for a second, it´s the first case in the states

Again, you seem to be having a major knee-jerk reaction here.

Sorry if it came across as a knew jerk reaction - that was not how it was intended. I was mroe trying to dispel the idea that it takes a conscious effort to clean.

The sort of person who would not manage to clean it through normal washing would also be the sort of person who would not wipe their ass. Or at least from my perspective. To me someones personal hygiene would have to be sooooo low that circumcism is the least of their worries.

I appreciate that you also feel hygiene is a better solution. And as you are of that attitude and as you don't seem like the sort to raise a boy never to touch his own penis, even for washing then the hygiene case should not really be a reason for your possible future sons to be circumcised.

As to the real medical benefits - in the UK the medical profession concluded there is no benefit. In the US it seems they have concluded there is. Given that in the UK most of the (male) doctors doing the study were themselves uncircumcesed and in the US they were mostly circumcised (going on probabilities) I think the various views are more based on the doctors self image than on the research.

Now - personally I don't object to male circumcism, really it's a pretty minor thing - to me. I think it's a bit strange, but I honestly would not think badly of any parent who did it to their kid. And cultural reasons for somethign like this (where the medical reasons are very debateable) are quite enough to justify it anyway. Really if it came to it and my significant other really wanted i'd get it done myself.


You had fun making people cring with that discription, didn't you...
Well it's about right for the more serious forms of FGM.

Of course 80% of FGM is only the removal of the cliterous without painkiller. A male equivalent would really be only sawing the head of the penis off without painkiller.

Huh. Well, I have a circumcision and I don't feel that way. So I suggest the problem is your own emotional and psychological reaction.

I mean you don't find people who've had their appendixes or wisdom teeth removed thinking as you do.

...

I had wisdom teeth removed at 18, and my appendix removed at 34.
No, I wouldn't prefer to have my teeth jostling for space in my jaw and causing permananent pain, and I wouldn't prefer to be dead from septicemia.

But I could have done without the pain of both operations. I think you are making a very dubious correlation between a life-saving (or at least medically justified) operation, and a traditional practice with no proven medical benefits.