ok, that makes more sense. and i did see a documentary on that practice in africa. it made me very angry.
though the sample size is still quite small i find the fact that 6 men are saying they leave things the way they are and only one has chosen to have it removed. So if an adult wouldnt chose this what right have you to inflict it onto a child
Evolution also resulted in your appendix and those little webs between your fingers. Your choice, but I'm sure you'll have to spend a long time looking before you find another man who agrees with you. It's not really circumcision, which literally means to cut something all the way around. The medical term is "clitoridectomy," removal of the clitoris, one of the primary female sex organs. Muslim apologists cleverly coined the term "female circumcision," to make it seem as though it's no worse than male circumcision--which, as has been established in this thread, has an unsavory history itself despite its fortuitous current regard as the answer to the AIDS epidemic. Since family newspapers hate to print words like "clitoridectomy" and since no other polite term has been coined for the practice, the euphemism "female circumcision" has, unfortunately, gained currency by default in some quarters.
Well, gee! How many would actually do this? I'm sure some, but they're have to have some serious religious convictions!
@above: correct @quotefromabove: Some Jews decide to circumsize later possibly DURING their bar mitzvah (becoming of a man)
Indeed. As I noted earlier, it's a way of saying: Interesting. I didn't know there were that many Jewish communities who didn't circumcise their babies.
80% of women get some form of HPV by the time they are 60? Is this really true? Women where? Anyway can you show me the evidence of this please? I find that figure incredibly high.
Sorry its Post #146. No I don't think either male nor females should be systematically circumcised 'just in case' someone may or may not come in contact with an STD. If people want to do so for religious reasons that's fine but it kind of reminds me of the woman who chooses to have a mastectomy because there is a chance she may one day contract breast cancer (this does happen)
If the procedure is done for consenting adults I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with are Western nations dictating what the new norm should be for non-muslim Africans. One should offer the information and allow for the adults or parents to make the choice for themselves. So with this I have no problem The study cannot make the claim that ALL women without a clitoris are able to reach orgasm since there is no evidence that ALL women with a clitoris are able to reach orgasm. See my point? There are also women who prefer penetration orgasm to 'clitoral' or are fine if they experience only one form of this orgasmic experience. This is also an assertion you cannot dismiss. FR: I find the argument utterly repulsive that it is okay to alter a woman's sex organs in order to reduce her sexual desire. Without asking I can promise you that the women I know would be even angrier about it, shouting additional obscenities about "time to rid the earth of all those phallocratic religions." It's what we do to domestic animals when we don't want them to reproduce. American women do not EVER again want to be treated like animals, not even like our most beloved animals, dogs and cats! I also find it repulsive but the women who are part of that culture seem to think it a necessity if the woman is ever to marry and generally perform the procedure on their gand-daughters and daughters since they have already experienced the procedure themselves. Of course there are women who are angry about it, especially western women who see no need for such barbarism. I am making the argument that since a high percentage of males in the US are circumcised it is now seen as a 'necessity' and rest on 'scientific' evidence to support ALL men being clipped. Not choice by choice but from birth through some sort of perceived necessity. This sums it up this part of the argument for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk0UR2VwAhY I hope you take the time to watch it. And no it doesn't contain any horrid footage of babies being circumcised. FR: How do you suppose the men in your culture would react if you told them, "We've got this wonderful new way to reduce your chances of contracting an STD. It's a surgical procedure that will reduce your desire to have sex so often and with so many different partners, and in so many unusual situations!" Do you think you would get out of that meeting alive? The men in my culture would react the same way a woman from my culture would react if you told them that they or their sons had to be circumcised. See my point? FR: I can't imagine what country you live in, but in America we celebrate sexuality. The days of repressing it are far behind us, except among children, and even that is changing. So to say that repressing female sexuality is a valid argument for clitoridectomy would get you killed twice in America. British, lived in NY for many many years and currently live in Cambodia where little baby boys do not get circumcised and yet their HIV/AIDS have dropped over the years due to PSA's and free condoms. I find male circumcision as monstrous as I do female circumcision. Since there is proof that sensitivity is diminished you cannot say that men are not somehow less 'virile' without their foreskin but that's besides the point. What I object to is unnecessarily putting a baby through this such horrendous pain, I have seen footage of a baby being surgically circumcised and it was awful! Just as awful as the footage of young girls being similarly assaulted. You say you haven't seen stats outside of Africa but that isn't what I find relevant in this discussion. I would like to see stats that compare the US vs. Europe since Europe has less cases of HIV and Herpes compared to the US. I would like to know why are their more cases of herpes and HIV transmission in the land of clipped men? FR: To inhibit female sexuality is a concept that is foreign to our culture. To equate it to "safe sex" is something that would get you booed off the stage as a relic from the Middle Ages, when women were regarded as subordinate to men and had very few rights. Well yes but for me to inhibit male sexuality is just as abhorrent and COMPLETELY foreign to my culture. You seem to equate safe sex with circumcision and the report I linked in post 146 seems to equate female circumcision as 'cleaner' and less likely for women to run around which of course lessens their chances of contracting the 'dreaded disease'. I don't see any difference in your argument for male clipping than I do for the other which claims there being nothing wrong with female circumcision. FR: You seem to have a problem with women who are libertine in their sexuality. That is not an attitude that will gain you respect in Western culture. That is probably even more true In Europe than in America, where some of our fundamentalist Christians still live in the 15th century. Stop bloody talking rubbish!! Don't you see that it is the research for female circumcision that shows these 'beneficial findings'. I would no more have a male or female clipped than I would suggest they cut off their head! No pun intended. As for the rest I am as western as you are just not as american as you are. You are supposed to be a 'linguist', this being the case I don't know why you would assume that anyone who uses the term 'shag' would be anything else but western. Again I didn't put forth anything save the arguments being used in the link I provided. Maybe you should read it again: "During the operation, all or part of the clitoris and the labia are removed. Proponents of female circumcision claim it makes virginity at marriage and marital fidelity more likely. Opponents condemn it as dangerous and painful. The women filled in questionnaires, asking about their sexual history. The results show "female genital cutting cannot be justified by arguments that suggest it reduces sexual activity in women," write the team in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology." http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-sex.html You keep telling me to pay attention to the stats, well instead of making assumptions about 'me' why don't you try addressing the findings in the report. And while your at it explain why it is that cases of HIV and Herpes is more prevalent in the land of clipped men than they are in Europe? *And try and remember that European men and women ARE NOT sexually hung like our American cousins with their 'virginity parties' and whatever else it is they do there these days. Fundamentalist christians living in the 15th century indeedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is based on something that I had heard, so thanks for keeping me honest. 1 in 4 American girls between 14 and 59 have some form of HPV, including 45 % between 20 and 24 : http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/64137.php A smaller study in Indianapolis shows larger infection rates, closer to the 80% figure I initially quoted: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111121630.htm I can't find any numbers for Europe.
Clean-Cut: Study Finds Circumcision Helps Prevent HIV and Other Infections Clean-Cut: Study Finds Circumcision Helps Prevent HIV and Other Infections Well, there you go.
Well being a female its not up to me to 'wear' the condom. Most people are aware of the health risks enough to keep condoms at home or carry them around in their purse or wallet. Its standard is it not? But wearing a condom is not the same as ripping off someone's skin.
That's bloody high!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm surprised about these results. It still leaves the question in my mind which is why are these results so high when something like 75% of american men have been circumcised? I mean I would have thought that the rate of transmission would have dropped since circumcision is so prevalent in the US.
Oh, geez, Lucy! Hell, I didn't know the doctors just ripped the foreskin off the little babies!! That's horrible, that's terrible ....we should stop this "circumcision ripping" at once. Thank you, Lucy. You can now proudly tell people that one of your intelligent, knowledgeable posts convinced someone to change their mind about an issue. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
Indeed not, condoms are fairly good at preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs. Far better than circumcision it as either. Using STD's as a pro-circumcision argument therefore, is pretty tangential.
