NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6355447.stm

That's right, a high school in Kenya has told students not to come back to school until they're circumsized.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6355447.stm

That's right, a high school in Kenya has told students not to come back to school until they're circumsized.

There are some health benifits being investigated. It seems to reduce the rate of infection of HIV and syphilis(sp?).

But because of bullying? Exactly when are these boys going to be compareing each others penises(sp?) (what is the correct plural?).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6355447.stm

That's right, a high school in Kenya has told students not to come back to school until they're circumsized.
I think the school gave a bullshit reason for this, according to that article. They sent the boys home because they said they feared they would be teased for being uncircumcised. That's BS.

Now, my schools required that kids have certain immunizations and such before we could attend school. I could see how, theoretically, a school might require circumcision for medical reasons, since it has been shown to reduce AIDS transmission. There are still some huge problems with this, but at least it wouldn't be an entirely bullshit reason. Saying, "oh, they'll get teased!" IS an entirely bullshit reason. Nobody should have to modify their body in order to get an education just because they might get teased if they don't.

Do schoolboys in Africa routinely check out the other schoolboys penises?

Do schoolboys in Africa routinely check out the other schoolboys penises?

It's probably worse that they're staring at some other kid's dick than it is that the kid is uncircumcized. That will get you made fun of in school.

I like my foreskin to much just to change it because of a couple shcoolkid's who happen to be the "penis police" , hell i'd laugh at the other kids for having a mutilated penis if they laugh at me.

I thought it was proven that all the "health benefits" of a circumcised penis were BS. I'm against any kind of forced mutilation.

Only one appropriate word:

SMEGMA

I thought it was proven that all the "health benefits" of a circumcised penis were BS. I'm against any kind of forced mutilation.

No, not BS. It's just that the "benefits" you can get from circumcision can almost always be mimicked by proper hygeine and safe sex. Viruses and bacteria can pass more easily into a mucous membrane than keratinized skin and infections can more easily grow in a warm, moist, unwashed area. But if the man washes himself properly and practices safe sex, any contribution from circumcision is negligible.

I thought it was proven that all the "health benefits" of a circumcised penis were BS. I'm against any kind of forced mutilation.

I'm against it being forced upon people, especially if it's for some stupid reason as it is in this case.
Calling it 'mutilated' is going a bit far though.

Ilaer

I'm against it being forced upon people, especially if it's for some stupid reason as it is in this case.
Calling it 'mutilated' is going a bit far though.

Ilaer

what term would you use?

If someone took my foreskin equivalent I would be pissed.

I thought it was proven that all the "health benefits" of a circumcised penis were BS. I'm against any kind of forced mutilation.

Calling male circumcision "mutilation" is ridiculous.

I'm against it being forced upon people, especially if it's for some stupid reason as it is in this case.
Calling it 'mutilated' is going a bit far though.

Ilaer

Somebody took a god damn knife to my manhood. I call it what I want.

Oh well there's always the sex trade to go into :sigh:

No, not BS. It's just that the "benefits" you can get from circumcision can almost always be mimicked by proper hygeine and safe sex. Viruses and bacteria can pass more easily into a mucous membrane than keratinized skin and infections can more easily grow in a warm, moist, unwashed area. But if the man washes himself properly and practices safe sex, any contribution from circumcision is negligible.

Yes, but with the HIV problem in Africa, Im not suprised they are averse to taking any risks at all with the populations' personal hygeine.

I think the school gave a bullshit reason for this, according to that article. They sent the boys home because they said they feared they would be teased for being uncircumcised. That's BS.

Now, my schools required that kids have certain immunizations and such before we could attend school. I could see how, theoretically, a school might require circumcision for medical reasons, since it has been shown to reduce AIDS transmission. There are still some huge problems with this, but at least it wouldn't be an entirely bullshit reason. Saying, "oh, they'll get teased!" IS an entirely bullshit reason. Nobody should have to modify their body in order to get an education just because they might get teased if they don't.

Spot on about the education....no one should modify anything to get an education...anyone who thinks differently is barbaric.

Calling it 'mutilated' is going a bit far though.

Ilaer

Calling male circumcision "mutilation" is ridiculous.


Why is it ridiculous? Someone takes a knife and cuts off a part of the penis - if that is not mutilation, then what is it?

Curcimcise a girl and you go to jail. But do it to a boy, and its ok?

Why is it ridiculous? Someone takes a knife and cuts off a part of the penis - if that is not mutilation, then what is it?

Curcimcise a girl and you go to jail. But do it to a boy, and its ok?

please don't compare female circumcision to male circumcision. It's just not the same.

please don't compare female circumcision to male circumcision. It's just not the same.

I can't believe people find circumcision acceptable. Its not just mutilation, its the cruelist kind of mutilation, genetal. It means that a male will never be able to enjoy sex as much as he could with more skin. I would say that it is comparable to a clitodectamy (female circumcision) or whatever it is that those sick muslioms do to baby girls.

I think the school gave a bullshit reason for this, according to that article. They sent the boys home because they said they feared they would be teased for being uncircumcised. That's BS.

Now, my schools required that kids have certain immunizations and such before we could attend school. I could see how, theoretically, a school might require circumcision for medical reasons, since it has been shown to reduce AIDS transmission. There are still some huge problems with this, but at least it wouldn't be an entirely bullshit reason. Saying, "oh, they'll get teased!" IS an entirely bullshit reason. Nobody should have to modify their body in order to get an education just because they might get teased if they don't.You actually have no idea if it is bullshit or not, and using your school to show WHY it's bullshit really proves nothing. This is a different society and culture we're talking about, and comparisons to our own is of extremely limited value.

Sure, it seems like a very wrong thing to do...TO US. And I'd even say we're probably right in that. But what we think about the matter really doesn't have any impact on the school authorities in this case, or the teasing that may or may not be a quite real factor in this decision. Unless you are an expert on Kenyan culture, (which I certainly am not), then neither of us can say whether 'teasing' would actually potentially lead to real harm or not.

Maybe it is bullshit. But we don't know it is...and I can't imagine why anyone would rely on what has been reported in this article as though that alone were enough to inform an opinion on the matter.

please don't compare female circumcision to male circumcision. It's just not the same.

Yes it is. It hacks off part of the genitals, leading to reduced pleasure from sex. Any attempt to claim otherwise is sexism of the worst kind.

please don't compare female circumcision to male circumcision. It's just not the same.

I agree that female circumcision is both much more severe and completely unjustifiable. And I would never pretend that my experience is comparable to that of any circumcised female. But circumcision of males is no tiny thing to be discounted, and unlike circumcision of females, which is a primitive atrocity only being practiced in a few parts of the world, male circumcision is something the majority of males in English speaking countries have to live with.

I thought it was proven that all the "health benefits" of a circumcised penis were BS. I'm against any kind of forced mutilation.

Agreed..but these few kids probably aren't going to be able to change the practice single handedly. Time for some campainging to stop male genital mutilation? How about here in the West too...

I agree that female circumcision is both much more severe and completely unjustifiable. And I would never pretend that my experience is comparable to that of any circumcised female. But circumcision of males is no tiny thing to be discounted, and unlike circumcision of females, which is a primitive atrocity only being practiced in a few parts of the world, male circumcision is something the majority of males in English speaking countries have to live with.

...majority?

...majority?

As far as I know. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I know that the majority of Americans are circumcised, and I think the same is true in the UK and Australia.

I can't believe people find circumcision acceptable. Its not just mutilation, its the cruelist kind of mutilation, genetal. It means that a male will never be able to enjoy sex as much as he could with more skin. I would say that it is comparable to a clitodectamy (female circumcision) or whatever it is that those sick muslioms do to baby girls.
I don't find circumcision acceptable.

Yes it is. It hacks off part of the genitals, leading to reduced pleasure from sex. Any attempt to claim otherwise is sexism of the worst kind.
uh.....most circumcised females can't have sex. My husband seems to do fine without his foreskin, it sucks that he has to, and I know that it was wrong for his parents to do that, but it's not the same.

I agree that female circumcision is both much more severe and completely unjustifiable. And I would never pretend that my experience is comparable to that of any circumcised female. But circumcision of males is no tiny thing to be discounted, and unlike circumcision of females, which is a primitive atrocity only being practiced in a few parts of the world, male circumcision is something the majority of males in English speaking countries have to live with.
then we agree.

...majority?

It's pretty common, actually. At least in America.

Yes it is. It hacks off part of the genitals, leading to reduced pleasure from sex. Any attempt to claim otherwise is sexism of the worst kind.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Calling male circumcision "mutilation" is ridiculous.

Hardly ridiculous. Just because most male genital cutting happens when the child is an infant, rather than when the child is older, doesn't mean it isn't damn painful.

So what...if they cut women's clits off right after the child was born, would that make it less of a mutilation?

Or is it just that male genital mutilation is such a common, and accepted practice, that it just doesn't raise your eyebrows, or cause you to question it?

Oddly enough, that's how a lot of people who support female genital mutilation feel. It's normal, everyone does it, etc.

uh.....most circumcised females can't have sex. My husband seems to do fine without his foreskin, it sucks that he has to, and I know that it was wrong for his parents to do that, but it's not the same.

Why is it wrong? Have you ever seen an uncircimcised penis? They look pretty disgusting. I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.

please don't compare female circumcision to male circumcision. It's just not the same.

If you set aside the particular ways in which the two are carried out, and the obvious anatomical difference, just what, precisely separates the two?

Please tell me you're being sarcastic.

Admittedly, one leads to a helluva lot less pleasure, but they are both functionally the same. No benefits, only penalties.

It's pretty common, actually. At least in America.

Doesn't seem to be so much elsewhere...

Just because most male genital cutting happens when the child is an infant, rather than when the child is older, doesn't mean it isn't damn painful.

Anesthesia is your friend.

And for the record, most Kenyan boys are circumcised at a much older age than their Western equivalents.

uh.....most circumcised females can't have sex. My husband seems to do fine without his foreskin, it sucks that he has to, and I know that it was wrong for his parents to do that, but it's not the same.
CAN'T have sex? Sorry? Of course they can. It's just incredibly painful for many women. It's only with infibulation that actual intercourse is prevented, and it's the rarer sort.

Then again, for many women, it isn't really painful at all. Or pleasurable.

Why is it wrong? Have you ever seen an uncircimcised penis? They look pretty disgusting. I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.

it's wrong because he didn't consent to having that procedure, it's not a medical emergency, he should be able to consent to having it done.

If you don't like the way your penis looks when you are an adult, then you can go get it done.

I don't particularly like the look of the uncircumcised penis, but it's probably because it's not the "norm" where I live.

Guys, to stop a possible threadjack, I'm starting a new thread about Male V. Female circumsision.

Yes it is. It hacks off part of the genitals, leading to reduced pleasure from sex. Any attempt to claim otherwise is sexism of the worst kind.

Pleasure from sex isn't just reduced for women, it's eliminated. In many cases, sex causes circumcised women a great deal of pain, because the operation was botched. (not that there is any right way to do it.)

Also, male circumcision arose out of an ancient hygenic practice, which is now outmoded. Female circumcision was never more than an attempt to deny women any pleasure from sex, because they were meant to be little more than a vessel for men.

If you set aside the particular ways in which the two are carried out, and the obvious anatomical difference, just what, precisely separates the two?

One makes childbirth and intercourse excruciatingly possible, and can lead to infection, urinary problems, and even death.

That answer your question?

Why is it wrong? Have you ever seen an uncircimcised penis? They look pretty disgusting. I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.

Every day. It looks like an elephant trunk. I'm glad my parents didn't circumcise me cuz it feels good, mmmm. I also didnt have to endure extreme pain as a newborn. They say infants can't feel it, but we are actually hyper-sensetive at birth which means we feel it more.

Its not a health risk either. I mean, if I didn't shower for a month and didnt dry it off after I whacked it, then yeah I would be at risk of infection. But thats not realistic today now is it?

One makes childbirth and intercourse excruciatingly possible, and can lead to infection, urinary problems, and even death.

That answer your question?

Err...Possible? Painful, surely...

Circumcision of the foreskin exposes the glans of the penis. This in turn causes the skin of the glans to become tougher, less sensitive and thicker. It has been shown that the chances of contracting AIDS are significanly less in circumcised men because the virus finds it more difficult to penetrate the skin barrier.

However, this ONLY applies if you're having UNPROTECTED SEX.

There has been great fear over the fact that that the benefits granted by circumcision has lead to more men thinking that they are now immune to aids and have therefore been having more unprotected sex.

The other reason for circumcision is that it helps prevent yeast infections from forming, however if one washes daily I don't see this being a problem.

It has also been said that the reduced sensitivity of the glans resulting from circumsicion makes a man "stronger in bed". A condom will do the same as it provides a buffer between the frictional surfaces during sex. Incidentally a condom also provides far better protection against STDs than circumcision.

Personally I feel that given the increased promiscuity in circumcised males due to the false belief that they are now "protected" and aknowleging that in these countries condoms are difficult, if not impossible, to get hold of then education is going to provide a far better method of controling the transmission of AIDS and that circumcision should be optional not compulsory.

I remember a documentary on BBC tv a few years back on just this subject and covering the points I have made in this post. In it a long distance lorry driver was interviewed. He reavealed how he would visit prostitutes regularly along his route. He knew that the prostitutes were infected yet he continued to do so. He would not go to be tested for the HIV virus as he was afraid it would come back positive.

One makes childbirth and intercourse excruciatingly possible, and can lead to infection, urinary problems, and even death.

That answer your question?

High-five, my circumsized brother. May circumcision live on for generations and generations!

If you set aside the particular ways in which the two are carried out, and the obvious anatomical difference, just what, precisely separates the two?

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

The most common type of female genital mutilation is excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, accounting for up to 80% of all cases; the most extreme form is infibulation, which constitutes about 15% of all procedures.

Long-term consequences include cysts and abscesses, keloid scar formation, damage to the urethra resulting in urinary incontinence, dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse) and sexual dysfunction and difficulties with childbirth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
Circumcision removes the foreskin from the penis.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states "a survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men.


that sounds different to me.

Anesthesia is your friend.

And for the record, most Kenyan boys are circumcised at a much older age than their Western equivalents.

Fun fun...would you have done it were it your choice later on in life?

Why is it ridiculous? Someone takes a knife and cuts off a part of the penis - if that is not mutilation, then what is it?
Wouldn't all surgery be considered mutilation, then?

Curcimcise a girl and you go to jail. But do it to a boy, and its ok?
Do it to a boy: they don't have a bit of skin covering their dick, do it to a girl: make urination painful and sex absolute torture.

Anesthesia is your friend.

And for the record, most Kenyan boys are circumcised at a much older age than their Western equivalents.

Fun fun...would you have done it were it your choice later on in life?

It's interesting too, the way in which male genital cutting is (generally) so carfefully done compared to the way in which female genital cutting is carried out.

Guys, to stop a possible threadjack, I'm starting a new thread about Male V. Female circumsision.

oops

Err...Possible? Painful, surely...

Gah, I meant painful. What was I thinking? :headbang:

Thanks for catching that, btw.

One makes childbirth and intercourse excruciatingly possible, and can lead to infection, urinary problems, and even death. Yes, when done under unhygenic conditions. So, imagine they did it nice and clean in a hospital, the way they do male circumcisions. There would be no more lingering pain that what a male experiences.

There would be no more lingering pain that what a male experiences.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

How do you know? It's not like any female circumcisions have been done in hygenic hospitals lately.

I will always have better sex than all you circumcised guys. HAHAHA. and I keep it clean so it won't get sick.

Unless you are an expert on Kenyan culture, (which I certainly am not), then neither of us can say whether 'teasing' would actually potentially lead to real harm or not.

I'm not an expert, but I am more knowledgeable than most. I don't know if the 'teasing' would lead to real harm, but not being circumcised could result in boys being pariahs in their community.

How do you know? It's not like any female circumcisions have been done in hygenic hospitals lately.

That's beside the point. Most surgeries are very painful, even if done in hygienic (sp?) hospitals, unless they're very minor surgeries. And, depending, on the type of female circumcision, many times it is hardly a minor surgery.

I'm not an expert, but I am more knowledgeable than most. I don't know if the 'teasing' would lead to real harm, but not being circumcised could result in boys being pariahs in their community.

Sounds like harm to me...harm doesn't have to be only physical to be a danger.

Every day. It looks like an elephant trunk. I'm glad my parents didn't circumcise me cuz it feels good, mmmm. I also didnt have to endure extreme pain as a newborn. They say infants can't feel it, but we are actually hyper-sensetive at birth which means we feel it more.

They used to say infants couldn't feel it. That is no longer thought to be true, however, and infants being circumcised (in US hospitals) anyways are generally given anesthetic.


Yes, when done under unhygenic conditions. So, imagine they did it nice and clean in a hospital, the way they do male circumcisions. There would be no more lingering pain that what a male experiences.

Do you honestly think that the cultures which regularly practice female circumcision get the males circumcised (assuming they practice both) in a hospital? Generations of men have been circumcised going back way before hospitals even existed, with less complications than those incurred during female circumcision.

The two don't have to be equivalent in physical harm to believe they are both wrong, you know. So why are you trying so hard to make them so that you have to ignore the differences in (a) what is being removed and (b) the anatomy of men and women - both of which would affect the physical severity of the process?

Yes, when done under unhygenic conditions. So, imagine they did it nice and clean in a hospital, the way they do male circumcisions. There would be no more lingering pain that what a male experiences.

So you'd be willing to have your inner labia, and possibly the outer labia and clitoris removed?

Once the labia are removed the risk of infection is increased not because of the hygene of the surgery but because they are able to close over the vulva and help prevent particulate matter entering the vagina.

I can't believe people find circumcision acceptable. Its not just mutilation, its the cruelist kind of mutilation, genetal. It means that a male will never be able to enjoy sex as much as he could with more skin. I would say that it is comparable to a clitodectamy (female circumcision) or whatever it is that those sick muslioms do to baby girls.

Actually, to get something equivalent to a clitodectamy on a male, you would have to remove the entire head of the penis, as that is the analogous male genital part (they develop from the same embryonic part). The foreskin is really only equivalent to the clitoral hood.

As far as I know. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I know that the majority of Americans are circumcised, and I think the same is true in the UK and Australia.You are mistaken.

Actually, to get something equivalent to a clitodectamy on a male, you would have to remove the entire head of the penis, as that is the analogous male genital part (they develop from the same embryonic part). The foreskin is really only equivalent to the clitoral hood.

*shudders at the very thought*

You are mistaken.

Not about America.

Not about America.

Aye, but otherwise. A little looking, turns out Australia, Ireland, UK, Canada...The works, basically, are majority uncircumsized.

Not about America.I only meant to refer to the second part, as I though that was what "Perhaps I am mistaken" was about. Not clear enough, I guess.

I only meant to refer to the second part, as I though that was what "Perhaps I am mistaken" was about. Not clear enough, I guess.

I guess I was wrong then. By how much of a majority are Australia, Ireland, and the UK uncircumcised?

Wouldn't all surgery be considered mutilation, then?

Most surgery doesn't involve removing something... and if it does it was probably going to cause you harm

Why is it wrong? Have you ever seen an uncircimcised penis? They look pretty disgusting. I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.

You are so very wrong.
<< am a girl

Why is it wrong? Have you ever seen an uncircimcised penis? They look pretty disgusting. I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.

i have a uncircimcised dick and don't think it look disgusting

i have a uncircimcised dick and don't think it look disgusting

More girls would watch porn if the men had a little more foreskin.

I don't really care that my parents had me circumcised. It doesn't seem to make me unable to experience sexual pleasure through stimulation of my penis, and I don't have to spend any more time cleaning it than I do washing other parts of my body.

More girls would watch porn if the men had a little more foreskin.

go a head i'm not going to stop them from watch it

I'm more concerned with how exactly the school plans to make sure this ruling is carried out. Penis inspections? :confused:

As for the differences between the two sexes....mutilation is mutilation. In that respect, both are equally wrong.

I'm more concerned as to how the school plans to enforce the ruling. Penis inspections? :confused:

please don't compare female circumcision to male circumcision. It's just not the same.

I’m aware that the female circumcision is far more radical than the males. But still, both involves cutting of bits and pieces of the genitalia. So they’re both mutilation.

Why is it wrong? Have you ever seen an uncircimcised penis? They look pretty disgusting. I'm glad my parents had me circumcised.

I’m circumcised (for medical reasons) and I find it… well, not exactly disgusting, but defiantly unnatural in a very nasty way. There’s missing something down there…
Why do you think an uncircumcised penis is disgusting? It is, after all, the natural look…

Aye, but otherwise. A little looking, turns out Australia, Ireland, UK, Canada...The works, basically, are majority uncircumsized.

uh... a little looking? ;)

are you really up to that?

Let me just state this: male circumcision is NOT mutilation.
It does no real harm whatsoever as well.

It is sometime necessary for health reasons, in fact, as in my case.

Ilaer

Do schoolboys in Africa routinely check out the other schoolboys penises?

Could be they covertly check out the competition? :eek:

I’m aware that the female circumcision is far more radical than the males. But still, both involves cutting of bits and pieces of the genitalia. So they’re both mutilation.
I never said they weren't both mutilation.

what term would you use?

If someone took my foreskin equivalent I would be pissed.

Well, without a forskin you are less likely to be pissed on. :D

Somebody took a god damn knife to my manhood. I call it what I want.

If you think "that" makes you "manhood", you are thinking with your "little head.":eek:

It means that a male will never be able to enjoy sex as much as he could with more skin.

How can you say that? How do you know that unless you were not circumcised, had sex, then were circumcised and then had sex? :rolleyes: Without that, there is no one who can say it is more or less pleasurable not circumcised or circumcised.

Yes it is. It hacks off part of the genitals, leading to reduced pleasure from sex.

Prove it! :rolleyes:

How can you say that? How do you know that unless you were not circumcised, had sex, then were circumcised and then had sex? :rolleyes: Without that, there is no one who can say it is more or less pleasurable not circumcised or circumcised.

Actually, there's some intresting business with electromagnetics and slash or electrodes....

P.S. How did I get in this thread?

I will always have better sex than all you circumcised guys. HAHAHA. and I keep it clean so it won't get sick.

What a rediculous statement. I challange you to a sexathon so we can "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" which one of us gets more pleasure from sex. :eek:

I don't really care that my parents had me circumcised. It doesn't seem to make me unable to experience sexual pleasure through stimulation of my penis, and I don't have to spend any more time cleaning it than I do washing other parts of my body.

I'll bet sometimes you spend more time cleaning it than you do other parts of your body. I'll bet you wash it very well from time to time to "make sure it is clean.:D