WARNING: Explicit thread...

[Occulus]

This is a thread inspired by a planned, but aborted, response to a post on another thread. The post involved genital mutilation, hence the 'explicit' warning label. I didn't know where to put it, as GD is certainly inappropriate for this, so I'm putting it here.

Mods and everyone else, this is intended to be a serious discussion, but it doesn't seem to fit anywhere but the Lounge. Please lock or delete if it becomes too rowdy.

Let's taulk:
___
THE ORIGINAL POST, a snip
___

"girls are mutilated through circumcision"
___
MY PLANNED RESPONSE
___


Boys are subjected to that right here in the USA every single day. I should know; I was one of them, as were millions more.

See, I was born with, as were all males, a little thing called a foreskin. This is intended to protect the glans from abrasion, desensitization, and so on. The argument I always hear in favor of circumcision, aside from the religious argument, is that it's a cleanliness issue.

COME ON. Or just come, because everyone knows that's what happens when a man who has foreskin cleans it well, and that really ought to be done as often as a daily shower or bath (I'm talking about cleaning it; masturbation should be done as often as possible :silly: ). This, I wouldn't know from personal experience because, as I said, I am a victim of genital mutilation right here in the US- only we give it the socially acceptable label of 'circumcision'. However, the 'cleanliness' issue doesn't wash, if you'll pardon the pun, because we're a modern society, and aside from that, we're smart... a guy wouldn't let that part go dirty for no good reason. I certainly wouldn't; I happen to keep the rest of mine very clean, thank you. I mean, it's not like it's a belly button or an earring hole we're discussing here.

So we fall to the religious issue. One could argue that there's a third, a 'cultural' issue, but that begs the question of the source of that cultural influence, which can, again, be primarily traced to various religions.

Which begs the question: why do so many religions or, rather, fundamentalists of those religions, have something against our own genitals? They're part of our bodies, and it's almost as if we're wired to celebrate them (I'm not mentioning theirs, as they behave as if they don't have any).

I truly do wish I had foreskin, because I'm at a serious sexual disadvantage against men with it. I am literally missing part of my sex organ, to no real logically arguable purpose at all. THIS HAS TO STOP.

In this one, single case, I could care less about religion, because this involves MY BODY, and I....

Oh, wait.

Gentlemen, I believe we have a case with women against how certain religions try to regulate our bodies and our sex lives, to the point that circumcision is acceptable here and female genital mutilation is acceptable there.

So the question is, given that these are each practices that affect our sex organs... why aren't we stopping this in both places? I'm sorry, those of you guys who prefer being 'cut', but I'd rather I weren't, simply because that's part of my body. Even if I tried one of the many myriad techniques for regrowing skin over it (google 'foreskin restoration' if you like, I did), there was tissue there that doesn't exist anywhere else on the body- it's what holds the skin closed, something like a biological elastic band. That's gone. I've been circumcised.

Why is this done to men, why is genital mutilation done to women, and what can we do to stop it? We're permanently impairing people's sex lives here, to no valuable purpose.

Discuss.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

1. There is NO comparison between

female genital mutilation and male circumcision.

Do you know what female circumcision is? It's barbaric mutilation. It means her clitoris is cut off. The appropriate comparison with a male is cutting off the penis.

I'll pass on the male circumcision debate, but as a female I personally prefer the circumcised male for hygenic reasons, and I'm not convinced all men would agree there is a sexual disadvantage to not having foreskin.

[Occulus]

2. Apologies, but

It's still the sex organ we're talking about. Intentional, forcible harm- however great or small- to the reproductive system. My particular attention was to the fact the we regularly do a similar thing here in a supposedly 'civilized' country to the other gender.

Apologies. Part of mine got cut off, too. An important part that women don't have. Forgive me if I find it just as important.

Aside from that, I realize some empathy with the female victims of gential mutilation. To me, circumcision is the male equivalent, if admittedly a pale one. The only thing worse for men to me would be enforced castration.

The whole thing was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. And in addition, how is circumcision any 'benefit' at all? It's been told it's the difference between the back of the hand and the palm, and I for one would prefer to feel things with my palm.

Yes, female genital mutilation is horrible. But we must at least admit that we do the same kind of thing to males right here, and we must consider the question of a connection between the two.

That's what my post was really about. My apologies if it required clarification.

edit: Ooohh, I must add something.

"I'll pass on the male circumcision debate, but as a female I personally prefer the circumcised male for hygenic reasons, and I'm not convinced all men would agree there is a sexual disadvantage to not having foreskin.

Allow me to respond. I believe I addressed the cleanliness argument in my original post. Every 'uncut' man I've ever met has told me (as I was curious) that they keep it as damn clean as possible. Two showers or one and a good scrub with a rag later in the day, at least. My personal experience is that men with foreskin are fastidious about keeping it clean.

As for the sexual disadvantage argument, that can be easily dealt with. Wear a simple band-aid on a part of your palm. or better yet a finger, for about three or four days. Do not take it off or let the band-aid slip off so you can touch anything- it must be completely covered throughout. Then, after some days as described, take it off and touch something. For men, shave your legs if you've never done so, and especially if you're very hairy.

That's the sensation difference I'm talking about. The man's behavior during sex would reflect the added sensation of the glans being covered for an extended period, which it is meant to be.

[MercutioATC]

4. I see your point, but there IS a HUGE difference...really NO comparison.

Male circumcision was originally a religious issue which has become a "cleanliness" issue.

Female circumcision (which is a removal of the clitoris, a much more drastic process) was initiated for the purpose of controlling women by attempting to eliminate their capacity for sexual enjoyment.

Imagine for a moment that women controlled everything. Now imagine that they had a standard practice of removing part of the labia majora of newborn females and removing the entire penis of newborn (or pre-puberty) males. See a difference now??

There are two issues here: severity and intent.

Female circumcision is an extreme procedure practiced solely to control women.

[Occulus]

13. I'd enjoy sex a LOT more

if I were circumcised. Without going into detail, I 'deprived myself of sensation' for a week once, and was most impressed with the results. :)

But consider: what policy or worldview benefits if males in general don't enjoy sex as much? Just consider the meaning of the implications there.

Interesting, aren't they?

Control, control, they must have control.....

[Mobius]

30. circumcised males can have orgasms

the type of female mutilation described here, means these females CANNOT have orgasms. how is that similar. If you could not achieve climax as a direct result of your mutilation, THEN you might have an argument. I would be interested to see how many eunuchs would sympathize with you, on this issue.

[Sapphocrat]

6. Where on earth ...

...did you get the idea that women don't have foreskins?

Some women get circumcisions (not a clitorectomies, but circumcisions), on purpose, as adults. I sincerely doubt many (if any) female DUers who've had the procedure performed will speak up, but trust somebody who knows -- a foreskin is not a "part that women don't have."

No comment on the rest of your post -- I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the penis. :D

[Occulus]

10. I never said they didn't.

What I'm trying to say is that the practices of female genital mutilation overseas and circumcision here are really two sides of the same coin.

But that is a severe oversimplification of the overall comparison.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

16. No. Female genital mutilation and male circumcision are not

two sides of the same coin. Two sides of the same coin would be female genital mutilation and cutting your cock off.

I'm not taking issue with your argument about the routine practice of circumcision. That's a debate I don't care to take up. I can only say that as a female my preference is for circumcision for hygienic reasons.

[Occulus]

26. How many women die

from this practice?

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

34. I wouldn't know

I do know that this procedure is carried out under deplorable conditions in some parts of the world. The piece I saw on this years ago had village women literally picking up a piece of dirty glass or some other sharp object and performing this procedure on young girls with no anesthesia. There were other village women there to hold her down while they did it. It was very traumatic, and quite sickening to watch.

[Occulus]

39. I think I saw that documentary

or something similar. Yes, it was chilling.

I asked the question because a man can easily bleed to death if his whole penis is cut off. The comparison seems more than a bit iffy.

The problem I'm having with those who are saying there's no similarity between the two is that there definitely is a similarity between the two.

Both are usually forced; the 'subjects' of the procedure have no choice.
Both involve the genitals.
Both involve taking a knife or sharp surface to the genitals.
Both are done on the very young.

So, there's four different ways that they're similar. One of these things.... is something like the other.

[foreigncorrespondent]

36. There are deaths (WARNING explicit details)

But first, let us talk about the procedure itself:

Resource: http://womensstudies.homestead.com/fgm.html

FGM: What it is:
Excision of the clitoris (most common) removal of all, or part, of the labia minora

Infibulation (pharaonic circumcision) includes clitoridectomy (all or part of the clitoris is removed)

And Excision and cutting of the labia majora to create raw surfaces; with infibulation there is also stitching to close the vagina or make the opening smaller

- the clitoris and some or all of the genital lips are cut away; an incision is made so the raw surfaces can be stitched together covering the urethra and most of the vagina

- a small opening is left for urine and menstrual blood *this leads to a lot of infections

<snip>

What is used:

Usually it is done by women who are the "traditional practicioners"; sometimes your aunt, or a neighborhood woman

Broken glass, tin lids, scissors, razor blades, knives, other things

With infibulation thorns or stitches may be used to hold labia majora together; legs may be bound together for up to 40 days afterwards
Sometimes sand is put in the genital organs afterwards; butter and herbs are used to stop the bleeding

<snip>

Consequences:
The highest maternal death rates in the world are in countries where FGM is practiced

-complications are more likely to be blamed on the girls "promiscuity" than the mutilation

Death

Hemmorage
Shock
Infections
Lifelong pain
Infertility
Menstruation problems
Inflammatory disease
Chronic urinary tract infections
Bladder stones
Kidney damage
Reproductive tract infections
Pelvic infections
Excessive scar tissue
Keloids
Dermoid cysts
Extremely painful intercourse and childbirth
HIV from the cutting itself or from the lasting damage left to genital area which makes greater risk for infection

<snip>

If you cannot see the difference between female mutilation and male circumcision, then I truly feel sorry for you. You obviously hold a lot of anger associated with having foreskin removed, and can't see past your loss to mourn the loss of what a woman has lost just to make sex more pleasing for the male.

[Occulus]

41. I never said there was *no* difference,

all I'm trying to do is call attention to men here that a similar, "more civilized" act is done to many of them right here in the US. I never intended to make light of female genital mutilation; indeed, I've been trying to call forth a bit of understanding from men- trying to establish a connection between the two- in order to make them more aware. I guess since there's just no comparing the two I'll give up or something.

How is it that people still seem to think that it's ok to mutilate a man's genitals, but not ok to do the same type of thing to women. And yes, I have seen with my own eyes badly-performed circumcisions that weren't then fixed. Those men don't get very much intercourse, if any, because they're so deformed.

I know it's a horrible practice to perform on women. I never said it wasn't. I'm only trying to make the point that what was done to me and millions of other men is very common, to the point one is hard pressed to even find a man who is uncircumcised. That fact could be used to make more people aware that sucy a thing, only much worse and punitive, is done to women overseas regularly as well.

I do take exception to the insinuation that I and other circumcised men aren't victims of a similar practice. It's done to the genitals, it's forcible (what baby can resist this?), and it involves cutting away a part of the body all males are born with. I think that's quite sufficient to find at least a common denominator that could make more people aware.

Or is it somehow ok, because it's just a little snip for men?

[Sapphocrat]

47. I'll re-read this thread again...

...but nowhere do I see anyone expressing the idea that "that it's ok to mutilate a man's genitals."

It's not okay with me at all -- and I have no use on earth for a penis in my life.

The reactions you're getting (and don't like) stem from your comparison of male circumcision to full clitorectomy.

Believe it or not, I'm on your side in the circumcision debate. I don't think it should be done. I think it is barbaric. I think it is mutilation.

But I'd be a lot more inclined to support you had you taken an entirely different approach in your opening argument. And while you've made it clear you are not attempting to downplay the horrors of female genital mutilation, that's how it sounds.

And while it is easy to support your theme, it's going to be very difficult to support you, without qualification, until you understand that circumcision and removal are two very different things -- and that the only viable comparison to clitorectomy is the complete removal of the entire penis.

Because, again, it sounds as if female genitalia are not as "important" as male genitalia. What other impression could any woman draw?

[foreigncorrespondent]

35. Excuse me!

But if they were to cut of your complete penis, then that would be male mutilation, but they don't, so it is circumcision.

There is nothing similar to female mutilation and male circumcision.

[Sapphocrat]

45. Sorry, kgfnally, but you did say that...

Part of mine got cut off, too. An important part that women don't have.

The foreskin is part of the penis. The clitoral hood is part of the clitoris. And you said that part is something "women don't have."

A minor point, but believe me -- just as your lost foreskin is an "important part" to you, the clitoral hood is just as important to me.

I'm not arguing that infant circumcision isn't barbaric, or that countless men aren't traumatized by the idea as adults -- I appreciate your trauma, and if I ever had a son, I would not have him circumcised.

However, it is important to me that you appreciate the value women place on their genitalia.

The female foreskin is no less "important" than the male foreskin, any more than the clitoris is less "important" than the penis, period.

I am stunned that you would confuse the loss of a foreskin with the loss of an entire sexual organ. Circumcising infant girls would be just as barbaric as circumcising infant boys -- but circumcision and the complete removal of the clitoris are not the same thing, any more than male circumcision is the same thing as the removal of the entire penis.

I sympathize with you, but there is no comparison. I am not "dismissing" your grief over your lost foreskin -- but I am shocked that you seem to place so little value on the clitoris as you do the penis.

Maybe that's not your intention, but that's exactly the way it comes across.


On edit: Corrected "are" to "aren't" in paragraph 3.

[Mobius]

31. what female part is foreskin?

I'm sorry, I'm shockingly unaware of female foreskin, and I'm a female!
Do you mean the outer or inner labia? I know older womens' outer labia can be rather loose and stretched out, I would guess there would be surgery to make them smaller? Geeeeez...I am soooo crossing my legs now! :scared:

[foreigncorrespondent]

37. From what I understand...

..as being the female foreskin, it is the clitoral hood.

[Sapphocrat]

44. It's called the clitoral hood...

..and serves the same function as the male foreskin, presents the same drawbacks, retracts when you're aroused, and is the part that women who get pierced "down there" get pierced through. (Can you imagine the alternative for piercees if there were no foreskin? That, I can't bear to think about!)

Presumably, it's of some use, friction-wise, during heterosexual intercourse -- that's the rumor anyway (I have no frame of reference). I do know a surprising number of women have it removed in order to heighten sensation all the time. (I can't imagine that, either; I think one would never be able to concentrate on anything else. LOL)

And, believe me, while no two women look anything alike down there, it's standard equipment. :)

Here's a clinical (not pornographic) diagram:
www. passionfires . com / hiwpic2.jpg

Remove the spaces from the URL and paste it into your browser. I am NOT posting pictures of female genitalia on DU! :D

Sign Me,

Your Friendly Neighborhood Lesbian
Intact and Un-Pierced

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

25. Okay, I follow the logic with the greater sexual sensation

That seems reasonable to me and I'll defer to you on that.

As far as the hygenic reasons I refer to, I am not suggesting men do not wash. How do I put this ... the skin still overlaps, where it is not exposed to air, and creates a place for bacteria to grow. That's what I mean

There are studies that show women with UNcircumcised partners have a higher incidence of cervical cancer. That is also a concern.

That being said, if men object to the practice I sure don't have any objections to the practice being stopped. I would object to using female mutilation to sensationalize the cause though.

edited to say UNcircumcised

[Occulus]

28. Hmmm

"the skin still overlaps, where it is not exposed to air, and creates a place for bacteria to grow. That's what I mean"

You mean like lips?

"There are studies that show women with circumcised partners have a higher incidence of cervical cancer. That is also a concern."

Did you mean circumcised, or uncircumcised? They way it's written, cut men help women have cervical cancer. Did you mean this?

I'm not uysing anything for anything... all I'm trying to do is call attention to a parallel that I see between the two related to both culture and religion, and stemming from fundamentalist philosophies.

Gawd, that was a mouthful. I'm going to bed.

Goodnight!

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

32. Yes I did mean to say uncircumcised. I edited that

The practice of female genital mutilation is used to control women. The purpose is so they do not enjoy sex. Not so they don't enjoy it as much. So they don't enjoy it AT ALL. The loss of foreskin does not prevent men from enjoying sex, or from acheiving orgasm.

What I mean by the foreskin overlapping is, ... well shit, ... no, not like lips. Don't you have to pull it back to wash? Doesn't it creep up over your penis? My observation is that even circumcised men have a little creepage and have to pull it back some to wash good. I'm saying that when it's all creeped up like that it makes for a moist area where bacteria collects.

Again, I have no problem with your objections to circumcision. I simply object to the comparison with female genital mutilation.

[Dookus]

3. so if a society

wanted to just snip a little piece of the clitorises of newborn girls, that'd be peachy?

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

12. Of course not

What I am saying is that clitoral mutilation is comparable to cutting off the penis, not to cutting off foreskin.

[Occulus]

15. Wow.

One piece of one equals more than half of the other?

:wtf:

Are you also implying that there's no parallel between the forcible aspect of the two acts?

I'm just asking.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

17. We are talking about a sexual organ

The size of it is irrelevant.

[Dookus]

18. the point I'm trying to make, though,

is that it appears you think the problem with female circumcision is one of SEVERITY. Would ritualized minimal genital mutilation of females be OK? I presume not. Then why are you so unconcerned when it's done to male infants?

Removing the foreskin IS akin to removing part of the clitoris. The foreskin contains a huge concentration of nerve endings (more than the penis left behind after it's gone).

Furthermore it has a function beyond just sex. We spent billions of years evolving this way - I don't think we should just discard a body part at birth for the sake of ritual.

[Occulus]

22. Exactly.

Why alter it in either case? Why not just leave the damn things alone???

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

29. I understand the point you're trying to make. I simply do not agree

It IS a matter of severity.

If you want to compare foreskin with removing part of the labia, then I'll go along with that. The labia also has sensitive nerve endings.

But the only comparison I will accept for female mutilation is the penis.

I am not taking issue with your objections to circumcision. I only take issue with using the cruel and barbaric practice of female genital mutilation to sensationalize it.

[Occulus]

38. I understand that

I think the point I'm trying to make is that men in this country could be made more aware of the issue by informing them that they (many men here in teh west) are victims of a similar practice, however pale by comparison it may be.

If I used this argument, and actually did make someone aware of this practice to the point that he actually went and tried to do something constructive about it, isn't that better than that man remaining ignorant of the situation?

Sometimes, it take instilling a bit of empathy to affect the situation. Isn't that better than nothing at all?

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

43. You can make a case against circumcision standing on its own

I don't have a problem with that and I think you can make a good case on its own merits.

I'm a female and I am going to defer to how the men feel on this issue.

But I repeat, male circumcision is in NO WAY analogous to the brutal practice of female genital mutilation and should not be sensationalized as such. The ONLY appropriate comparison with the male is cutting off the penis, not snipping off some foreskin. Hardly a fair comparison.

[izzie]

5. I am with you on this.

I do not like the subject.

[Occulus]

7. So...

If I'm circumcised, and I'm ticked off about it.........?

What do you wish? Silence?

NOT.

Where's the difference? Part of my body is missing, and it was done against my will.

What's so hard to understand here? Am I the only one that gets it?

[Dookus]

9. I get it, kgfnally....

This issue has come a few times, and I've always been surprised by how many women dismiss it so easily.

[Occulus]

11. I'm surprised myself.

And I'm also surprised that men aren't drawn to women using this as a plank regarding the abortion issue, which also relates to the sex organs.

I'm seeing a pattern in the enforcements among the religions regarding sexual issues. And I don't like it. One bit.

[Sapphocrat]

48. Dookus, I'm not dismissing it at all...

I'm with you on this. The sticking point is equating circumcision with the removal of the entire clitoris and surrounding tissue. That's all.

Yes, it would be just as wrong to circumcise infant and young girls. But they don't just circumcise them -- they cut out the clitoris and everything connected to it. That would be like cutting off your entire penis, including your testicles.

That's what's being dismissed.

As YGTBKM said a few posts up, the argument against infant male circumcision can be argued on its own merits.

[LiberalVoice]

14. I get it...

I understand the implications of it but, I don't really think I'm missing out on much without the foreskin.

Ps. I have a penis.




Pps. No seriously I do!:silly:

[Dookus]

20. but there's the rub (as it were)

You have no idea what you're missing. Neither do I.

A woman who had half her clitoris removed at birth probably wouldn't "miss" anything, either. She'd have nothing to compare it to.

[Occulus]

42. Well, actually,

if you want to have an idea of what you're missing, all you have to do is keep it covered by something that stays close to the skin and doesn't move around a whole lot, something to keep abrasive sensations away. It works. :)

[Occulus]

27. But there again,

have you always been circumcised? If so, you can't really say, can you?

[TexasMexican]

8. Both are mutilation.

n/t

[KG]

19. oh, please.

the rants againt circumcision need to stand on their own. any comparison to female GM is laughable.

female GM means removal of the clitoris, thereby depriving the victim of sexual pleasure for life. it is a brutal practise meant to humiliate and subjagate its victims. circumcision is nothing like that. the only way to compare it to female GM is castration.

cirumcision has in no way impaired my sex life; it has actually enhanced it.

[Dookus]

21. well I think if you wanted to be circumcized as an adult

nobody would stop you. But should we do it to newborns?

Personally, I'd like to have a choice in the matter.

[Occulus]

24. So would I. n/t

[Occulus]

23. question

"irumcision has in no way impaired my sex life; it has actually enhanced it"

Were you circumcised as an adult?

[Mobius]

33. I agree that circumcision is mutilation

and most definitely agree with waiting until adulthood and/or sexual maturity, for the person to decide what permanent, painful alterations would happen to their body. However, chopping off the clitoris is not the same as slicing off foreskin. Neither is right, or acceptable, but female GM is much more severe. I remember finding out about circumcision as a child and asking my embarrassed mother what the reason for it was. She just mumbled something about hygiene. I knew that was not right, because people shower and keep clean, especially private areas. I was 7 years old.
I truly am sorry you were mutilated, and I really am not trying to diminish your suffering. But at least you can still climax. These women who have had their clitoris removed, cannot. That difference needs to be distinguished.

[JMac]

40. Humm

All I can say is, "Thank Gog I was circumsized as a child." I know that I wouldn't have the balls to have it done as an adult even if I wanted to.

[Edge]

46. Yikes...

Reading this just hurts. :scared:

Thank God I was circumcised when I was just a little baby...

[Iris]

49. Why is this not appropriate for the GD thread?

I haven't been around much lately, so maybe I've missed something.