Circumcision - Page 11

Hatuey · 03-30-08, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

There are the same "health-related reasons" for the form of female circumcision that involves only clit hood removal that there are for male circumcision.

Wtf are you talking about? Didn't I disprove this claim like 3 pages ago? Why are you trolling now?

rivrrat · 03-30-08, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Wtf are you talking about? Didn't I disprove this claim like 3 pages ago? Why are you trolling now?

Umm..no, you didn't disprove it. There's no way to disprove it because the possibility of infection exists just as it does in men. Women must clean the clitoral hood area for the same reason men have to clean under the foreskin. If that area is not cleaned and is left to build up sebum or "cheese", (or toilet paper, urine from the toilet paper, etc) then extreme discomfort/pain occurs. It makes the clit extremely sensitive.. even moreso than it already is. Which can and does make orgasm next to impossible. If left 'untreated' (or uncleaned) infection can develop.

In fact, the reason infant and toddler girls play with their clits so much is generally because their clitoral hood is not being cleaned properly and is causing them discomfort in the form of pain and itching.

The symptoms can be from mild to severe - severe resulting in extreme pain when *anything* touches the clitoral area because it's so inflammed, swollen, and tender. Then once infection sets in, it only gets worse.

Most women clean themselves well enough, and are taught to wipe from front to back - which helps to keep toilet paper and urine out of the clitoral hood area. Many learn from experience.

But, women with rather large clitorises have much more difficulty and discomfort. Normal cleaning methods don't suffice and the clitoral hood MUST be moved back at every washing.

1069 · 03-30-08, 12:32 AM

He's only like 20. He knows jack ****e about women and their anatomy.
Just leave him to his ignorance.

Hatuey · 03-30-08, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Australianlibertarian

Really, as rivrrat pointed out, women are still prone to infections around the clitoral hood. Just because there has been very little study done in the area of female hygiene and female circumcision, does not mean that the premise used to support male circumcision, is somehow irrelevant.

This is provably false. There are absolutely no substantiated medical justifications for female circumcision :

EGYPT: Theologians Battle Female Circumcision

Quote:

Every doctor at the conference agreed that there is no medical justification for female genital mutilation. Heribert Kentenich, physician-in-chief of the women's clinic at the DRK Hospitals in Berlin expressed a "complete lack of understanding" for the fact that 75 percent of circumcisions are now performed by doctors in Egypt. "I find it almost more horrifying that doctors are enriching themselves by doing this," he added. The drop in the estimated incidents of female circumcision has dropped significantly -- some believe as much as from 97 percent to approximately 50 percent -- but it is impossible to obtain precise figures. Even at 50 percent, that would still represent roughly 400,000 girls a year. Kentenich believes that the "medicalization of female genital mutilation makes it seem more acceptable."

Simply put the medical justifications used for female circumcision hold no ground.

Hatuey · 03-30-08, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Umm..no, you didn't disprove it.

No doctors did.

Quote:

There's no way to disprove it because the possibility of infection exists just as it does in men. Women must clean the clitoral hood area for the same reason men have to clean under the foreskin. If that area is not cleaned and is left to build up sebum or "cheese", (or toilet paper, urine from the toilet paper, etc) then extreme discomfort/pain occurs. It makes the clit extremely sensitive.. even moreso than it already is. Which can and does make orgasm next to impossible. If left 'untreated' (or uncleaned) infection can develop.

In fact, the reason infant and toddler girls play with their clits so much is generally because their clitoral hood is not being cleaned properly and is causing them discomfort in the form of pain and itching.

The symptoms can be from mild to severe - severe resulting in extreme pain when *anything* touches the clitoral area because it's so inflammed, swollen, and tender. Then once infection sets in, it only gets worse.

Most women clean themselves well enough, and are taught to wipe from front to back - which helps to keep toilet paper and urine out of the clitoral hood area. Many learn from experience.

But, women with rather large clitorises have much more difficulty and discomfort. Normal cleaning methods don't suffice and the clitoral hood MUST be moved back at every washing.

Do I need to bring this up for you again? There are no substantiated medical reasons for female circumcision. You're more then welcome to acknowledge this fact :

EGYPT: Theologians Battle Female Circumcision

Quote:

Every doctor at the conference agreed that there is no medical justification for female genital mutilation. Heribert Kentenich, physician-in-chief of the women's clinic at the DRK Hospitals in Berlin expressed a "complete lack of understanding" for the fact that 75 percent of circumcisions are now performed by doctors in Egypt. "I find it almost more horrifying that doctors are enriching themselves by doing this," he added. The drop in the estimated incidents of female circumcision has dropped significantly -- some believe as much as from 97 percent to approximately 50 percent -- but it is impossible to obtain precise figures. Even at 50 percent, that would still represent roughly 400,000 girls a year. Kentenich believes that the "medicalization of female genital mutilation makes it seem more acceptable."

The direct consequences include hemorrhaging, as well as severe pain and anxiety that can lead to trauma. Besides, the practice can also cause infections in the urinary tract, the uterus, the fallopian tube and the ovaries. Other consequences such as tetanus infections, gangrene and blood poisoning can be fatal. Besides, women who are subjected to pharaonic mutilation experience increased pain during menstruation, when blood accumulates in the vagina because the opening is too small to permit normal flow. Mutilated women are also at greater risk for becoming infected with HIV.

Intercourse is painful for circumcised women. To be able to penetrate, men must often force themselves into their wives' vaginas. Those whose penises are incapable of doing the job use a knife to enlarge the opening.
i

1069 · 03-30-08, 12:49 AM

Quote:

This is provably false.

Dude.
You don't know ****e. Seriously.
You sound like a retarded child.
There's the same negligible and rather stupid "medical" reason for females to get circed as there is for males to get circed: because of the potential for bacterial and/or fungal infections under the foreskin/ clit hood.
Keep it clean and one minimizes- although does not entirely eliminate- the risk of minor infections and irritations.
Although it's kind of hard to keep a baby, toddler, or small child all that clean; babies' foreskins are not retractable, for one thing; it takes a few years in most cases for them to become retractable. If you try to retract a baby's foreskin, it tears the skin and it bleeds. It's not meant to be retracted.
And as for baby girls, well I imagine you just take a wet wipe and wipe their crack, it's not like you're going to go digging around in there messing with all their delicate parts, prying everything open in an effort to get them clean.
So, you know... minor bacterial and fungal infections are pretty common in both uncirced females and uncirced males, pretty much from birth onward.

I don't know that circumcision entirely eliminates this risk in either males or females; my husband's circed and he still gets rashes and irritations sometimes.

Doctors won't recommend female circumcision for infants because it's anthema in our society, associated as it is with primitive tribal people sewing girls' vaginas shut and yanking out their clitorises by the roots; in other words, with FGM.

But the type of female circumcision that would be analogous to the male circumcision practiced in America would be clit hood removal only, which is no more "barbaric" than standard male circumcision and would be equally beneficial in preventing minor infections as male circumcision is.

That's not why we circumcise males in this culture. If it were, we'd circumcise females, too.
Nobody really believes that preventing yeast infections under the foreskin is a good reason to chop off part of their babies' genitals.
We do it for aesthetic purposes. And for whatever arbitrary reason, our social aesthetic dictates that we not modify the genitals of female infants, even as it insists we modify male infants' genitals.

It is about aesthetics.

rivrrat · 03-30-08, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

No doctors did.

Do I need to bring this up for you again? There are no substantiated medical reasons for female circumcision. You're more then welcome to acknowledge this fact :

EGYPT: Theologians Battle Female Circumcision

Then there is no reason for male circumcision. Because the same risk of infection, "dirtiness", and discomfort/pain applies to both.

The links you keep bringing up keep referring to female genital mutilation, which is different than circumcision. Well, at least.. that's what you circumcision proponents keep telling us. Many of us call it male genital mutilation, but for odd reason, you and others seem to disagree. So why is cutting off a part of the penis not considered mutilation, but cutting off (or splitting) a similar part of the female anatomy is deemed horrendous "mutilation". Even though both areas can build up bodily fluids, trap dirt and bacteria and have a risk for discomfort, pain, uncleanliness, and infection, only one gender is considered "special" enough to be "fixed" so as prevent the possibility of infection should they or their parents not bother to clean them well enough?

It's either two things here:
1) You and the doctors you reference don't think highly enough of women to bother trying to prevent such pain and infection from happening to them.

Or

2) Men are just deemed too fricken stupid to wash their own dicks so we have to cut part of it off for them.

Or maybe it's a third reason: Male circumcision is a outdated, barbaric practice with no basis in medical necessity.

Hatuey · 03-30-08, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Then there is no reason for male circumcision. Because the same risk of infection, "dirtiness", and discomfort/pain applies to both.

The links you keep bringing up keep referring to female genital mutilation, which is different than circumcision.

False. The links I post refer to all 4 recognized types of circumcision. Or did you miss the most obvious parts of the links again?

EGYPT: Theologians Battle Female Circumcision

Quote:

WHO distinguishes among four types of genital mutilation:

* Type I, or "clitorectomy": Excision of the skin surrounding the clitoris with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris
* Type II, or "excision": Removal of the entire clitoris and part or all of the labia minora
* Type III, or "infibulation": Removal of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching together of the vaginal orifice, leaving only a small opening
* Type IV: Various other practices, including pricking, piercing, incision and tearing of the clitoris.

Quote:

Well, at least.. that's what you circumcision proponents keep telling us. Many of us call it male genital mutilation, but for odd reason, you and others seem to disagree. So why is cutting off a part of the penis not considered mutilation,

Because there are medical reasons for it? As oppose to female circumcision? I feel like I keep going in circles around this with you.

Quote:

but cutting off (or splitting) a similar part of the female anatomy is deemed horrendous "mutilation". Even though both areas can build up bodily fluids, trap dirt and bacteria and have a risk for discomfort, pain, uncleanliness, and infection, only one gender is considered "special" enough to be "fixed" so as prevent the possibility of infection should they or their parents not bother to clean them well enough? It's either two things here:
1) You and the doctors you reference don't think highly enough of women to bother trying to prevent such pain and infection from happening to them.

Or

2) Men are just deemed too fricken stupid to wash their own dicks so we have to cut part of it off for them.

I'm still waited for these substantiated medical reasons for female circumcision. It seems right now it's just your opinion. But oh thats right all you'll find is religious psychobabble.

mikhail · 03-30-08, 01:12 AM

I dont think Hatuey's ego will let him admit he is wrong on this issue.

rivrrat · 03-30-08, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

I'm still waited for these substantiated medical reasons for female circumcision. It seems right now it's just your opinion. But oh thats right all you'll find is religious psychobabble.

They're the same so-called "substantiated medical reasons" for male circumcision. Or do you really think I'm just making up this crap about the female anatomy? I mean, seriously? You really think it's just "my opinion" that sebum builds up under the clitoral hood? That it's just "my opinion" that infections can and do occur there? Seriously now?

If you really feel that the slight risk of infection under the foreskin is a "substantiated medical reason" for male genital mutilation, then you must also agree that the same slight risk applies to women as well and is a "substantiated medical reason" for female mutilation.

I honestly cannot quite fathom how you're not seeing the hypocrisy in your stance. Unless you really are that ignorant about female anatomy. Which is understandable since you ARE male. Most men don't even know how to find the clit, much less the anatomy of it.