Genital mutilation also occurs in the U.S., activists call on states to make it illegal

[Dashinka 24,974]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

You bring up a good point. However those are actually quite difficult to compare since castration is removal of the gonads, which you don't do in FGM since they are internal. So there are also problems with that comparison as well.

 

Some forms of FGM would be more comparable to a "penectomy", which would be removal of the entire #######.

Agreed.  It is interesting the "C" (as seen in an earlier reply) word is not filtered out here, but the "P" word is.  I've always thought of both as rather clinical.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, smilesammich said:

in my mind the fact that fgm removes the ability to orgasm negates all similarities. they might both be surgical procedures w/ no medical necessity but the end result over a lifespan is too different to compare. why do we have to continue to compare the two once we get to the gaping difference? as a society we accepted circumcision because we thought it benefited the child. i dont see how fgm is ever a benefit, outside of culture norms in specific countries. 

I'm comparing the procedure. The difference you mention is the result of the procedure. The procedure itself can be compared though. It is likely a different way of thinking. The ultimate conclusion is based on the procedure plus the outcome so obviously in the end FGM is much worse. However just because the outcome is bad doesn't mean you can ignore the fact that the procedure itself shares similarities.

 

We thought it benefitted, and we now have more evidence that those benefits are incredibly small/not significant in certain societies (including America). So we continue to allow parents to consent to removal of foreskin despite not having clear benefits. We don't seem to have a problem with that, and that is still incongruous to me. I would still perform a circumcision if asked, I would never perform a female circumcision. I'm okay living with some things that are mildly contradictory, as I said at the beginning.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

agreed

See my post though. It's not at all. One removes gonads, one removals external genitalia. They are actually FURTHER apart from each other than circumcision/FGM anatomically speaking. Also a castration would not necessarily suffer the same side effect you have focused on (lack of orgasm). A eunuch technically could achieve orgasm, it would just lack sperm. It would also be harder if performed on an infant but that would be for hormonal reasons and not anatomic reasons.

 

As I said a "penectomy" may be a better comparison. They are scales/gradients for everything.

Edited March 28, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

See my post though. It's not at all. One removes gonads, one removals external genitalia. They are actually FURTHER apart from each other than circumcision/FGM anatomically speaking. Also a castration would not necessarily suffer the same side effect you have focused on (lack of orgasm). A eunuch technically could achieve orgasm, it would just lack sperm. It would also be harder if performed on an infant but that would be for hormonal reasons and not anatomic reasons.

 

As I said a "penectomy" may be a better comparison. They are scales/gradients for everything.

ok so the guy can maybe get off but he can't reproduce. at least what is taken is sort of closer in scope..still don't see why a comparison is needed.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

ok so the guy can maybe get off but he can't reproduce. at least what is taken is sort of closer in scope..still don't see why a comparison is needed.

It's not though. Not anatomically. The woman can still have babies. They are quite different.

 

Again I would concede to a penectomy being a closer comparison for sure  (even that is hard though, since it would make sexual intercourse impossible while FGM doesn't, though it have a similar effect on orgasm). Castration however, absolutely not. Not in any medical sense. Maybe from a lay perspective.

 

EDIT:

 

This isn't a real procedure (to my knowledge) but a prepucectomy (making up that name) would be the best comparison. Removal of the male foreskin PLUS the prepuce (the "head" of the #######). So not a total penectomy, but removal of the top. That would be a reasonable comparison. Sex is still possible, but it would limit you significantly. You can still bear children.

Edited March 28, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Sorry but no. These claims go around a lot, but there's not a ton of evidence out there in favor of the subject. In many areas of Europe the thought of circumcision for any other reason but religion purposes is not really considered in the way the practice was strangely so accepted in America. You can certainly look at the literature on this that is especially critical of studies and claims that say otherwise. Not saying in some individuals it shouldn't be considered, but if it were an accepted fact (and it's quite disputed these days) we'd most likely see the rates of these issues in the uncircumcised in Europe quite high. And it's not. There is no clear right or wrong answer for this. It's why it's a parent-doctor decision. Personally it's choosing to mutilate your child for reasons that don't hold as much weight as they once did. There is no known medical indication for having it as a routine practice and it is on the decline in the US. Parents should be informed of the risks and or any potential benefits. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html

 

Any genital cutting of a child - boy or girl for religious reasons, is what it is. For religious reasons.

I guess mayo clinic is out of the loop

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I guess mayo clinic is out of the loop

They begin their list with:

 

"Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:"

 

It is a controversial topic. It is very political. Also from the Mayo Clinic:

 

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. However, the AAP doesn't recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns."

 

Hopefully people can see the problem with those two sentences. If the benefits "outweigh the risks", then shouldn't it be recommended? It has a net positive benefit, why not recommend it? They don't want to go all out because not everyone agrees with it, but the also don't want to say it is bad either since many people do agree with it. It is very middle of the road. (I am an AAP member by the way, and typically agree with them)

[smilesammich 10,727]

26 minutes ago, bcking said:

It's not though. Not anatomically. The woman can still have babies. They are quite different.

 

Again I would concede to a penectomy being a closer comparison for sure  (even that is hard though, since it would make sexual intercourse impossible while FGM doesn't, though it have a similar effect on orgasm). Castration however, absolutely not. Not in any medical sense. Maybe from a lay perspective.

 

EDIT:

 

This isn't a real procedure (to my knowledge) but a prepucectomy (making up that name) would be the best comparison. Removal of the male foreskin PLUS the prepuce (the "head" of the #######). So not a total penectomy, but removal of the top. That would be a reasonable comparison. Sex is still possible, but it would limit you significantly. You can still bear children.

gross. you win

[OriZ 3,157]

5 hours ago, smilesammich said:

but, doesn't fgm make orgasm close to if not completely impossible? circumcision doesn't do that.

No, but supposedly it does take alot of the enjoyment out of it, I wouldn't know the difference though so I'm good

 

4 hours ago, bcking said:

In the ideal world yes I think it should be a given. I would want some legal friends (ideally people with medical legal expertise) to comment on the impact it would have on groups pushing towards banning circumcision. That is a topic of discussion in the US.

 

We don't allow child abuse, you are absolutely right. However we DO allow a parent to consent to have the foreskin of their son's ####### snipped off before the child can consent for it themselves. We do that because

1. It is a societal norm for many many families, for religious and personal reasons

2. The risks and negative consequences are reasonably small

3. There are also some minor benefits, though they aren't really applicable for most people in the US

 

Point 1 applies to FGM as well. The difference is point 2/point 3 are both not true of FGM.

 

We allow parents to provide "informed consent" for their children as long as we also as a medical community deem it to be either in the best interest of the child, or at least not harming the child (first do no harm). The decision that circumcision doesn't cause harm though is something that is deeply rooted in culture and practice. Believe me when I say having actually performed the procedure. It is definitely "harm" by the basic sense of the word. You are cutting off skin, it bleeds. It doesn't seem to hurt that much, but we also numb it (many people do complete nerve root blocks of the entire ####### beforehand). It is an ELECTIVE surgical procedure that we allow parents to consent to.

 

I don't know where medical opinion currently lies with regard to elective plastic surgery on minors (It doesn't come up often for me since I work with babies), but I think similar issues could come up there. They are elective, they cause "harm" (they are surgery) and there is no real medical benefit. Maybe not negative consequences either, but still.

Well, when doctors do it, you numb, do you know what rabbis do?

 

4 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

The two arent even close not even on paper .Its ludicrous to even compare the two things

 

circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

• Easier hygiene. 
• Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. 
• Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. 
• Prevention of penile problems. 
• Decreased risk of penile cancer. 

I'm with naitch here. Yes, it's controversial, but plenty of credible sources have pointed out the benefits throughout the years that I consider them to be more than minor. Especially when webmd is on board too http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

 

There are actually many people these days that get them done for the benefits and not for religious reasons. 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Anyone ever date a girl with braces?

[bcking 3,157]

31 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I'm with naitch here. Yes, it's controversial, but plenty of credible sources have pointed out the benefits throughout the years that I consider them to be more than minor. Especially when webmd is on board too http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

 

There are actually many people these days that get them done for the benefits and not for religious reasons. 

I'm sorry but the "benefits" in the United States/Western Europe are marginal at best. That is my medical opinion as a board certified Pediatrician and member of the AAP. So marginal that, despite saying "the benefits outweigh the risks" (in order to appease those who get it done) the AAP "boldly" (being sarcastic) didn't want to step on any toes so basically said "up to you". I like the AAP for a lot of their guidelines, but unfortunately their comments on highly charged, historically significant issues like this are just not that relevant. 

 

Now in other parts of the world I would treat it slightly differently because the benefits are greater. In places where HIV rates are higher, the reduction is significant. In places where hygiene standards are different, it is important to consider. But in the US, in a normal household, it won't make a difference.

 

It is entirely optional, except that it is an "option" that your parents decide for you instead of yourself. That's just the way our society functions, and I won't judge people for getting it done or not done (and I won't judge my parents for their decision...) because that is a "societal norm" that we have created. In the western world we aren't doing it for any real benefit anymore. We are doing it because people's parents did it, and people feel like it is the "normal" thing to do.

[OriZ 3,157]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I'm sorry but the "benefits" in the United States/Western Europe are marginal at best. That is my medical opinion as a board certified Pediatrician and member of the AAP. So marginal that, despite saying "the benefits outweigh the risks" (in order to appease those who get it done) the AAP "boldly" (being sarcastic) didn't want to step on any toes so basically said "up to you". I like the AAP for a lot of their guidelines, but unfortunately their comments on highly charged, historically significant issues like this are just not that relevant. 

 

Now in other parts of the world I would treat it slightly differently because the benefits are greater. In places where HIV rates are higher, the reduction is significant. In places where hygiene standards are different, it is important to consider. But in the US, in a normal household, it won't make a difference.

 

It is entirely optional, except that it is an "option" that your parents decide for you instead of yourself. That's just the way our society functions, and I won't judge people for getting it done or not done (and I won't judge my parents for their decision...) because that is a "societal norm" that we have created. In the western world we aren't doing it for any real benefit anymore. We are doing it because people's parents did it, and people feel like it is the "normal" thing to do.

To each their own. I personally continue to believe it is something that should be done over not - not that I have an issue when it's not - but when my wife and I discussed it in the past we both agreed we don't need a rabbi for it and we'll have it done as a medical procedure. I also didn't want to wait 8 days to do it. So....do you know what they do for "numbing"?

 

EDIT: Also, in regards to parents choosing for their children, parents make alot of choices for their children. And I'm not necessarily comparing these choices to a surgical procedure, but what parents choose to feed their children is a choice they make for them. If they choose to smoke around them thats a choice they make for them. So many choices are made for the children without their consent. What if they want to be vegetarians?

Edited March 29, 2017 by OriZ

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, OriZ said:

To each their own. I personally continue to believe it is something that should be done over not - not that I have an issue when it's not - but when my wife and I discussed it in the past we both agreed we don't need a rabbi for it and we'll have it done as a medical procedure. I also didn't want to wait 8 days to do it. So....do you know what they do for "numbing"?

"To each their own" is exactly the AAP stance They don't really care enough to step on toes because it really has no significant benefit, but it doesn't hurt either. So people can go ahead and continue to do it. 

 

Some Mohels use anesthesia, some don't. I know they also use sugar water (as do medical professionals) and sometimes alcohol. Not sure exactly what you are referencing. I worked in NYC for 3 years so had a lot of babies born who ended up getting it done by a Mohel. 

[yuna628 9,758]

24 minutes ago, OriZ said:

No, but supposedly it does take alot of the enjoyment out of it, I wouldn't know the difference though so I'm good

 

Well, when doctors do it, you numb, do you know what rabbis do?

 

I'm with naitch here. Yes, it's controversial, but plenty of credible sources have pointed out the benefits throughout the years that I consider them to be more than minor. Especially when webmd is on board too http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

 

There are actually many people these days that get them done for the benefits and not for religious reasons. 

1) Supposedly yes it does take some enjoyment out of the act in studies done for uncircumcised vs circumcised men. In that way, there is some slight similarity to FGM (though women would likely have full reduction of any further enjoyment of sex life).

 

2) The benefit evidence just isn't there for me to convince me to do it to my own sons if I ever have them. Millions of European and American men manage just fine perfectly intact with no medical concerns. There's enough respectable counter-argument to medical recommendations, that aren't really recommendations at all. As WebMD even says, it's debated, and the benefits are not enough (that speaks to it not being conclusive enough) that it should be a universal recommendation. It is an option.

 

Still we practice freedom of religion in America, and if we allow a person to circumcise their sons for religious reasons alone, where do we decide to draw a line? Most of us would look at FGM as a horrific act, but one that may also be tied to religious practice. I'm playing devils advocate here, even though I also find it horrific. It's also not like in some countries and counties (iirc) they haven't tried to also get measures to ban any modification, without respect to the religion involved across the board. They generally fail. Overall there are millions of Muslim women living in the US and Europe that have not been mutilated, and yes the community should do more to put an end to these practices. There are even some tiny Jewish communities that also seem to have FGM issues too. http://forward.com/sisterhood/127919/does-judaism-endorse-female-genital-cutting-no-b/ There are Christian sect religions that currently continue to abuse their women and girls (and there are some tribal Christian sects around the world that do practice FGM).

[OriZ 3,157]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

"To each their own" is exactly the AAP stance They don't really care enough to step on toes because it really has no significant benefit, but it doesn't hurt either. So people can go ahead and continue to do it. 

 

Some Mohels use anesthesia, some don't. I know they also use sugar water (as do medical professionals) and sometimes alcohol. Not sure exactly what you are referencing. I worked in NYC for 3 years so had a lot of babies born who ended up getting it done by a Mohel. 

Maybe the mohels in hospitals in NYC. In Israel, they usually do it in your home or a synagogue, and always give them alcohol. Seems to calm them down enough so while I'm sure it's painful, I am also sure there's many things more painful. The "mitzvah" of circumcision lies in the pain it causes actually, so they don't often use anaesthetic or sedation. Usually a drop of wine does the trick.