Egyptian girl dies during female circumcision

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Amusing to see though that while most Americans find female circumcision barbaric and horrifying, they're just fine with male circumcision.

Wow. Like comparing a beheading to a haircut.

Zackly!

[JoeMama 0]

Amusing to see though that while most Americans find female circumcision barbaric and horrifying, they're just fine with male circumcision.

Wow. Like comparing a beheading to a haircut.

Zackly!

Maybe the dude doesn't have a normal "head" and pisses out of a pubic hair. Are male and female circumcisions the same now? Grab the sheers!

[Stabu 0]

Male circumcision isn't the same thing at all. Speaking as one that has been "clipped" it isn't mutilation. This form of female circumcision most certainly is.

Mutilation is defined as "an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death". Male circumcision definitely degrades the function and changes (as this is aesthetics the question is debatable, but so is all mutilations) the appearance of the human body.

Circumcised males are de facto a minority in the world and are around 1/4 to 1/5 of the world population. In Europe male circumcision is almost unheard of. In Finland you may end up in jail for up to three years or be fined up to 10 000$ and your kid may be taken away from you if you circumcise him without a valid reason (valid reason being religious, i.e. Islam or Judaism or a forcing medical condition). There's currently a lawsuit pending that may even outlaw male circumcision for religious reasons as well.

It's much different. Men can still achieve orgasm after being circumcized but women cannot. As a matter of fact the very act of woman circumcision effects them for the rest of their life including very painful and life threatening childbirth. It's definitely barbaric, as my husband agrees, but back before the 70's people really didn't think that much into it. They just did it because you were supposed to, whether you were Christian, Muslim or whatever. I don't think it's only prevalent in Egypt either.

I partly agree. Both male and female circumcisions (as they are used in the west) are inventions of the ancient Egypt and have from there travelled to many other cultures. The form of female circumcision used in Egypt is indeed the most extreme case of this practice. The same is done in Sudan and Somalia. Also many other Central African countries but also some Middle-Eastern, East-Asian and South-American countries or regions use a similar type of practice. Female circumcision was also somewhat common in the United States from the early 20th century until the mid 50's. What differs these other parts of the world from mainly Egypt, Sudan and Somalia is that in those parts the female circumcision is of a milder type. In general it may include as little as sticking the ####### with a needle or as much as removing the whole hood of the ####### (this is almost equivalent to a common male circumcision, even if this is milder). In some cases also parts of the ####### minora are removed.

The female circumcision, even the Egyptian/Sudania/Somalian type, doesn't prevent females from having an orgasm. Even if the top part of the ####### is removed most of the ####### still remains, even if it's located below the skin. Even if it's totally removed by digging it out there's still the Gräfenberg spot (commonly know as the g-point or the g-spot) which enables females to have an orgasm. This spot is never removed. Of course the female circumcision of any type - just as a male circumcision of any type - reduces the sensitivity and thus the chances of getting an orgasm but they do not prevent it.

The female circumcision is prevalent in Egypt and is there defended by Egyptian females (see e.g. this video), since its part of their customs and culture. They don't see any problems with it, just as most Americans don't see any problems with male circumcision. This however, isn't a valid argument for it.

The comparison is odd. Do you really believe that is a valid comparison?

Do you know what is being cut in case of female mutilation vs. male circumcision?

Do you?

Regardless if she does or not, Ayaan Hirsi Ali surely does know. She is originally a Somali refugee and an ex-Muslim who has been circumcised. She has repeatedly said that she thinks that male circumcision is even worse than (most cases of) female circumcision. The reason, she thinks, why WHO and others condemn female circumcision but approve male circumcision is because of culture relativism and condemning male circumcision is simply too sensitive. Female circumcision isn't exactly part of any religious doctrine (even if it has been quite well mixed up with Islam) while male circumcision is mandated in Judaism and strongly recommended in Islam. Criticizing male circumcision as barbaric practise (as it should be criticized) is the same as condemning fundamental teachings of these two religions. Thus silence prevails.

Wow. Like comparing a beheading to a haircut.

No it's not. It's more like comparing skinning ones head and being beheaded. Both sound extremely bad to me. Your comparison is the same as comparing shaving your public hair and being circumcised.

[Geist 0]

The comparison is odd. Do you really believe that is a valid comparison?

Do you know what is being cut in case of female mutilation vs. male circumcision?

Do you?

Yes, I do consider it a valid comparison. Both are called circumcision and both change the way the genitals function. As female circumcision occurs when the female is old enough to have some input for or against it, in a lot of ways, I consider male circumcision to be worse because it is typically inflicted on a helpless baby!

But the main point is that Americans are so quick to criticize traditions that have been seen as necessary in other cultures, but never think to question their own unnecessary actions. No children need to be circumcised, regardless of gender. It is barbaric.

Maybe the dude doesn't have a normal "head" and pisses out of a pubic hair. Are male and female circumcisions the same now? Grab the sheers

And I'm female, by the way.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Geist

[Marilyn. 340]

I am just curious how male circumcision changes the way the male organ functions??

I have heard it improves the function of it in a lot of ways it ...

easier to keep clean etc...

Edited August 13, 2007 by MarilynP

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The comparison is odd. Do you really believe that is a valid comparison?

Do you know what is being cut in case of female mutilation vs. male circumcision?

Do you?

Yes, I do consider it a valid comparison. Both are called circumcision and both change the way the genitals function. As female circumcision occurs when the female is old enough to have some input for or against it, in a lot of ways, I consider male circumcision to be worse because it is typically inflicted on a helpless baby!

One of the basic flaws in your argument is the supposition that the 6 - 12 year old girls that have the genital mutilation inflicted upon them have any kind of input into whether or not that is done. If you believe that these girls line up voluntarily to have this cruel procedure performed on them - mostly w/o any anaesthesia - then you're seriously kidding yourself.

[Geist 0]

I am just curious how male circumcision changes the way the male organ functions??

I have heard it improves the function of it in a lot of ways it ...

easier to keep clean etc...

Anatomy of the ####### and Mechanics of Intercourse

One of the basic flaws in your argument is the supposition that the 6 - 12 year old girls that have the genital mutilation inflicted upon them have any kind of input into whether or not that is done

But if you're dead set against it, at least you have the opportunity to run away. But when it's a cultural issue and is presented as a rite of passage, why would you be against it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am just curious how male circumcision changes the way the male organ functions??

I have heard it improves the function of it in a lot of ways it ...

easier to keep clean etc...

I don't know if that's true to be honest. I mean... I've never had any problems. And I've never understood the 'keep it clean' the clean argument - I mean... all you have to do is wash it... To use the previous analogy - seems to me that its a bit like shaving your head because you can't be bothered to wash your hair.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But if you're dead set against it, at least you have the opportunity to run away. But when it's a cultural issue and is presented as a rite of passage, why would you be against it?

I'm not sure its presented like that though - considering that this is practiced in a lot of the same countries where if you have the misfortune to get raped, your male relatives will beat you to death for bringing shame on the family.

[Stabu 0]

I am just curious how male circumcision changes the way the male organ functions??

I have heard it improves the function of it in a lot of ways it ...

easier to keep clean etc...

Well, it reduces the sexual sensitivity between 20 and 80% (see e.g. this). The purpose of the forskin is the same as the eyelid, to protect the organ beneath it (even if an eye needs, of course, more protection). The forskin also functions as a natural lubricate during sex. It makes sex easier.

This is not however the point. The point is, that it's absolutely unfair to mutilate any child. Infants don't get a say if they are being circumcised and nor do most young children have a good say in that matter (which is the norm in middle-eastern countries for example). An adult may do whatever he wishes with his body. But it's wrong to mutilate, pierce, tattoo or equally vandalize a child's body (cutting nails and hair is different, since they don't cause any damage albeit I think that kids have the right to decide what kind of hair they want to have as well).

Hygienic arguments are really poor counter arguments. We live in an era with showers and soap. No-one considers shaving off all hair on everyones head since it's also more hygienic. This is simply unnecessary.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is simply unnecessary.

I agree with you there. Not something I would do to my kids.

[Marilyn. 340]

well, my hubby is circumcised and he seems to have no problems with it...

as for the hygiene thing I was thinking of little boys, they rarely like taking a bath etc so it would be harder for them to keep it clean....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

well, my hubby is circumcised and he seems to have no problems with it...

as for the hygiene thing I was thinking of little boys, they rarely like taking a bath etc so it would be harder for them to keep it clean....

Well the same argument surely applies - just because a kid doesn't brush his/her teeth properly it isn't reason to have the teeth pulled out.

[doodlebug 3]

In general it may include as little as sticking the ####### with a needle or as much as removing the whole hood of the ####### (this is almost equivalent to a common male circumcision, even if this is milder). In some cases also parts of the ####### minora are removed.

The female circumcision, even the Egyptian/Sudania/Somalian type, doesn't prevent females from having an orgasm. Even if the top part of the ####### is removed most of the ####### still remains, even if it's located below the skin. Even if it's totally removed by digging it out there's still the Gräfenberg spot (commonly know as the g-point or the g-spot) which enables females to have an orgasm.

holy ####### i think i'm gonna hurl!

[Stabu 0]

holy ####### i think i'm gonna hurl!

Reaaaaaly sorry about that one . Too graphical illustration . But medical stuff are mostly nasty (I can't stand blood myself at all) and so uncool when done to people unvouluntarely .