who wants to equate circumcision with FGM?

[Mobius]

Poll question: who wants to equate circumcision with FGM?

who wants to equate circumcision with FGM?

[KG]

1. no equation.

FGM is a brutal action meant to demean, humiliate and enslave it's victims.

[blondeatlast]

2. Agreed--surprised this is even here.

[DS1]

3. It is, in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=731820&mesg_id=731820

[Mobius]

4. hence this poll

It helps me sort out what people are thinking.

[BiggJawn]

5. Never been told "Eww! You're cut, how GROSS!"

It's a non-issue for me, but some people have nothing more pressing in their lives. Lucky Them.

[veganwitch]

6. while i dont think the comparison is true

i think male circumcision is mutilation and should not be done unless the parents and/or religion requires it. and even then (religion) one can bend the rules. i know a jewish mom who didnt circ her son.

if this kid is a boy, i wont be doing it.

[liberalhistorian]

34. Good for you!

My son will be thirteen in two months. I didn't have him circumcised, never wanted to and never planned to, and you wouldn't believe the hell I caught for it, from the doctors and nurses to my own family and friends. You'd have thought I'd killed him or something! I'm glad I stood my ground, though, and my son is too.

[soleft]

7. I will only in this respect

I was ranting one day about female circumcision with a friend of mine, at the close of which she said gently, um. didn't you circumcise your son?

And that stopped me cold. I thought about it. I imagined an infant human being, 3 days old, being separated from its mother, anesthetized, held down on a cold table, while a piece of it's body is cut away. No idea what's happening to it. No say in the matter. Forever and irreversibly altered. Why, um...because it's what's usually done?

Now - no, this is not the same as taking a adolscent, pre-teen girl and castrating an entire organ so she can never experience sexual pleasure so she can be controlled by a primitive patriarchal rule. No.

But if I had the choice now whether to circumcise my son, I wouldn't do it.

[Momgonepostal]

30. anesthesia is a more recent thing...

I think it's only been in the last couple of decades that they even started anesthetizing babies for a circumcision. It seems a bit barbaric not to, IMO.

We just have girls and are done having children, but we had decided if we had sons, they would not be circumcised.

[CanuckAmok]

31. Welcome to DU, Mom...!

:toast: :donut:

[Momgonepostal]

35. thank you! nt

[MAlibdem]

8. How is male circumcision mutilation?

Besides the fact I find this thread anti-jewish, I want to know.

It takes a second, there is basically no pain (I certainly cannot remember), and it makes it look prettier.

Also reduces the chance of getting STDs.


Edit: If you're anti-circumcision, are you anti-ear piercing as well? Or anti-toenail clipping? Anti-shaving?

[DS1]

11. sheesh

You don't remember being born or having your umbilical cord cut either. The pain at the moment really isn't the issue.

Prettier to you, because you grew up with yours like that, we have the option, I can make mine pretty to, any time I want.

STDs? BS.

No, because it's a matter of choice, silly. Have you ever wondered why ear-piercing is supposed to be a 16 or older thing, at least in the stores...

I'm not anti-toenail, in fact I save my clippings over the summer and put them down on ice in winter. Recycling is my friend, it can be yours too, with a little effort.

Actually, I do have a beard, come to think of it, so maybe I am anti-shaving.

[oxymoron]

14. Actually the latest research suggests that being circumsized

can help protect men from AIDS.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/78/95921.htm

edit for typo

[BigMcLargehuge]

9. That was the argument I used to keep my son's willy intact

Then I yanked tons of material that shot apart the "it's more healthy" myth. Cutting ANY part of the body off for non-medical reasons is mutilation if the person to whom the cutting is done has no say in the procedure, and newborn babies have no say.

[Mass_Liberal]

Not that I felt it

but in retrospect, it must have been cruel and immensely painful. I don't want to that to my kids, if I have any.

[Mass_Liberal]

10. woops

repeat

[shimmergal]

12. Don't think it's the same, but

I'm kinda uneasy about any surgery on the body that's not medically necessary, doublly so if it's done to a small child who has no say about it.

'Course on the same principle, I told my daughter she couldn't get her ears pierced till she was eighteen. She wore me down, though. I finally consented when she was an eighth-grader.

[Dookus]

13. equate? No. Compare? Yes.

Both are in fact, genital mutilation. Just because male genital mutilation is common and accepted here doesn't change the fact that it is mutilation.

[Elidor]

15. *SOB!* I want my SCHMUCK back, dammit!

My poor foreskin! Wherefore art thou, my little snake-sock?

[Esurientes]

17. So is that why you call yourself "Hardhead"?

:smirk:

[gator_in_Ontario]

16. not equal, but I

don't agree with it, because of a lack of consent by the affected party. Unlike FGM, circumcision doesn't seem to hamper sexual function or enjoyment.

[MAlibdem]

18. Some could argue that sexual function/enjoyment is enhanced (nt)

[Exultant Democracy]

19. Others would argue that since the foreskin is full of nerve endings

that sexual enjoyment is dimminsihed. The foreskin didn't just show it one day, we have it for a reason. To remove a part of someone's body without their consent, unless there is a dire emergency, is just wrong.

[plurality]

23. how would you know if it's enhanced?

If you're like most who had it done in infancy, you have nothing to compare it to. You could be missing out on orgasms of the gods.

[CanuckAmok]

29. I know. I've had it both ways. Sex is better without, in my case.

n/t

[Sapphocrat]

20. To recap (no pun intended)...

Circumcision is cutting off skin at the tip of the penis or clitoris.

Circumcision is not the removal of the penis and testicles.

FGM is the removal of the clitoris and surrounding tissues.

The only male equivalent to FGM would be the wholesale removal of the penis and testicles.

Men can enjoy a fully normal, functional, pleasurable sex life, emotional scars excluded, without a foreskin.

Women cannot enjoy anything remotely resembling a normal, functional, pleasurable sex life (except to "function" as nothing more than a semen receptacle and baby-making machine) without a clitoris.

There is no comparison.

That said, I am against circumcision performed on anyone -- especially infants -- incapable of making that decision for him- or herself.

That said, I believe it is entirely misguided and unfair to compare, much less equate, FGM with circumcision.

I also believe it smacks of dismissiveness toward the value of female sexual pleasure.

More here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=731820

[Dookus]

21. I'm getting sick of this...

No, they're not the same. Nobody says they are.

But they ARE similar - it's genital mutilation done on unconsenting infants for no good reason.

Christ, already.... why does this have to be a "who gets it worst" issue? Why be so dismissive of genital mutilation that occurs millions of times of years HERE IN AMERICA?

[Sapphocrat]

24. And I really, really hate having a conflict with you, Dookus...

I wouldn't care what you thought if it weren't you. I like you, I respect you, and I have a helluva good time with you on lighter issues. So this pains me doubly.

Dook, I keep telling you I DO think infant circumcision is barbaric and totally wrong, wrong, WRONG.

I am NOT dismissing the issue on its own merits.

I am upset that the comparison to FGM was ever made in the first place.

And if you really want to get into the question of "who gets it worst," the little girls who end up with no genitalia whatsoever "get it the worst."

Now, tell me -- in all seriousness -- what would help you to understand that I support you on the issue of circumcision?

Because I really, really do.

One thing I'd like you to try to understand is this: As a woman (not as a lesbian, but just as a woman), I've been inundated all my life with the idea that the penis was king -- that nothing is as important as the penis, that women's sexual pleasure is inconsequential next to the existence or absence of a male erection. (Think about it -- there are still hetero couples who actually believe there is no such thing as sex going on if the male can't get it up. It's this idea that makes some people believe that oral sex isn't cheating, because there's no penetration involved. You know, the old "definition of what 'is' is.")

Now, as a lesbian, I have been inundated by the attitude that a vagina + a vagina = 0.

So I need you to understand how deeply it affects me when I hear anything that sounds as though female sexuality just doesn't count as much as men's.

I know that's not true. I'm also confident you don't believe it's true either. I just need you to understand how it sounds to me.

[Djinn]

36. thankyou Sapphocrat

equating the removal of the clitoris and often the labia minora as well and the cutting of the labia majora to create a "raw" surface and often the sewing together of the wounds leaving a tiny hole which makes giving birth painful if not deadly, with the removal of the foreskin is patently ridiculous.

I also wouldn't circumcise my own child and think unneccesary surgery is wrong but to the poster above who is calling this an anti-jewish thread REALLY needs to get a better grip on reality, jews are NOT the only group who practice circumcision of boys, in the US just over 60% of boys are circumcised, do you think they're all jewish??????

On edit: the "reduces STD's" case is FAR from conclusive and does not take into account the fact that as large numbers of circumcised men live religiously observant lives they are naturally likely to have fewer sexual partners and therefore less exposed to STD's, there have been no reputable studies comparing only the incidence of STD's in secular circumcised men. The vast majority of paediatricians now advise against it.

[camero]

22. Ok, call me ignorant

But I've actually ran into some women who were considering FGM that were in their 20's and 30's and my first thought was, "why?".

I wonder even more now that it has been fully explained to me.

No, I don't equate the two. I do just fine without that piece of skin.

[JohnLocke]

25. I'm Jewish...no comparison

Ridiculous.

[populistmom]

26. No, it's not

I, however, did have my first two sons circumsized, but then better educated myself on the subject and did not choose to do so with my third son. I have no regrets regarding that last choice, but I do somewhat with my older two. Ultimately overall though, they all seem pretty happy with themselves. :)

[MurikanDemocrat]

27. There is no comparison

Female genital mutilation equates to cutting off the entire penis and testicles. There is no equating it to circumcision.

[CanuckAmok]

28. We've had this discussion before. I know from experience...

..having been circumcised after becoming sexually active, at age 20, that sex is just as or more enjoyable without the foreskin. Plus, it's easier to keep clean, and recent research suggests that circumcised men are less likelty to contract HIV, although nobody is yet sure why.

I'll be happy to provide anyone who asks with graphic reasoning for my personal opinion, but the bottom line is, if I had a son, I'd have him circumcised. No, it is not genital mutilation. It has more in common with removing the appendix or the umbilical cord end, than the clitoris.

[Don_G]

32. I Witnessed A Briss Once

In the hospital and under strict aseptic conditions witnessed by several nurses and the parents.

FGM isn't even in the same category.

[burrowowl]

33. FGM consists of excising the clitoris

The equivalent for the male would be having the glans cut off plus a little more.
Add sowing the labia together to ensure virginity and said labia being cut open with a knife for the consumation of the act.
There is really no comparison.

[bleedingheart]

37. There is no comparison

FGM is practiced on older girls.
FGM kills.
FGM affects a woman's ability to urinate, menstruate, and give birth.
FGM has no medical purpose.

There may be cases where circumcision kills but I have never heard of one.
It also has some medical purpose specifically in older men who are unable to keep their foreskin area clean. My sister is a nurse and has told me that many older men are circumcised because they do not practice proper hygiene. (of course they consent to it..)

[TexasMexican]

38. Both are mutilation.

but apparently from the poll results one is somehow more acceptable than another.

[Djinn]

39. if someone asks you TexasMexican

would you rather have an arm cut off without anaethetic or sterile instruments or the tip of your finger in a hospital under anesthetic.

I dont agree with foreskin lopping either but they are not the same thing

[MurikanDemocrat]

40. Not so fast

The poll didn't ask if they were both acceptable. It asked if they were COMPARABLE.

They are not comparable, because the true comparison of FGM to a male would be entire removal of the penis. Not remotely COMPARABLE to removal of foreskin.

Most people here are in agreement the circumcision is mutilation.