Gobsmacked

Okay I'm not supposed to be posting for a personal reason and because I already said I was pulling out of this conversation...but I just want to point out, that the fact sheet above isn't even from a medical website, its from a biased men's interest group. Of course it is going to make it sound that way.
 
But that's just your opinion. If you ask all the mothers of the girls that have it done, it's female circumcision. Different cultures, different opinions.

The way you feel about female circumcision is the same way I feel about male and female circumcision. And actually, being circumcised DOES reduce male sexual pleasure.

A brief factsheet on circumcision:

https://www.ncfm.org/circumcisionfactsheet.htm

What I just read on this link you provided and what I know about male circumcision,it's nothing compared to female mutilation.
Some facts:

The procedure, when performed without any anesthetic, can lead to death through shock from immense pain or excessive bleeding. The failure to use sterile medical instruments may lead to infections.The first time having sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful, and infibulated women will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their husband access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the husband with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.

And about the name Female circumcision:

Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female genital mutilation (FGM), or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), refers to "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons

Thats how it's called.

I can't even imagine comparing male and female ''circumcision''.

Making carpets is a part of someone's culture,causing grevious and barbaric bodily harm shouldn't be a part of anyone's culture.
 
Okay I'm not supposed to be posting for a personal reason and because I already said I was pulling out of this conversation...but I just want to point out, that the fact sheet above isn't even from a medical website, its from a biased men's interest group. Of course it is going to make it sound that way.

It doesn't matter where it's from, the correct medical references are all there. And how can it be biased? Surely the male opinion is the only one that matters here?

Amy, in response to your post, this is a quote from that same website notjustskin.org.

3. Isn't female circumcision worse than male circumcision?

Female circumcision is typically viewed as more horrific than male circumcision because it is usually done under unhygienic conditions rather than in a hospital, and because one form of female circumcision, infibulation, is particularly severe. However, both male and female circumcisions are classed as genital mutilation by the International Coalition for Genital Integrity. Both forms of circumcision remove functional, normal tissue, cause extreme pain, permanently disfigure the genitals, and permanently damage the sexual response. When done to infants or children, both male and female circumcisions violate human rights since they are performed without the individual's consent.

The World Health Organization recognizes three types of female circumcision. Type I removes the clitoral hood and/or the clitoral tip. Type II removes the clitoral hood, clitoris, and part of all of the labia. Type III, also known as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision, involves removal of all external female genitalia and suturing of the vaginal opening.

Male circumcision can be compared to type I or II female circumcision. Although the glans is not harmed at the time of circumcision, the loss of protective structures causes it to dry out and lose sensitivity over time. It is also important to note that many of the nerves and pleasure receptors present in the clitoris are, in the male, present in the foreskin, so removal of these nerves constitutes a loss that can be most adequately compared to a partial clitoridectomy.

Anyway I'm bowing out of this thread now. It's obvious that we don't agree so there's no point going round and round in circles.
 
It doesn't matter where it's from, the correct medical references are all there. And how can it be biased? Surely the male opinion is the only one that matters here?

It does matter where it comes from. I just mean there is a way to debate fairly. I'm studying such debatable issues in school every single day(politics, religion, sociology), and the one thing we DO, when we debate is show evidence from places that are reptuable. It is just fair to show information from sites that don't have a particular viewpoint, just state the facts. Its just as bad to take facts from a radical feminist webiste.

If unbiased facts aren't shown, then it just turns into an irrational arguement that cannot be won rather than a debate.

Last words I'm saying.
 
Wow, I actually wondered if people in other countries did this as a common procedure. I guess they don't. My first 2 sons were circumsized, and my next one will be as well. I have chosen to do this b/c my husband is and I want them to be like daddy and not wonder why they are different. Many babies in the US have it done. My OH said it was weird to see guys not circ. and they were often teased. I don't agree that it is the same as mutilating a girl. It is nothing like it. It does take a few days to heal, and I do believe it is painful to the baby, but they don't remember it, and it only hurts initially. I would never hurt my baby for no reason, and I love my kids very much. I do what I think is best for them. Having said all that, I think we have all been very good at debating this subject. I belong to another forum as well, and when things are debated, people get really heated. Thanks for being thoughtful of others feelings ladies.
 
Ok, so i am probably going to lower the tone here a little....

I see all of your points of view, i really do and i have no real feelings on the subject, apart from i am more of the "leave things as intended" point of view to anything in life, but my OH is circumcised and I have some real concerns about how much it does effect his sexual pleasure. He is the only man i have met to have had it done and it seems to make a massive difference to sex - for him and minor inconveiniance to me...

does anyone else have any personal experience of it affecting sexual pleasure? I don't mean read an article, but had experience of it.

The way i see it is (very much so tmi) the foreskin pulls back and stretches a very sensitive area of the penis (the inverted v bit). Some men even put implants in this point to enhance stimulation. without the foreskin, this stimulation is much less cocentrated on this spot...so must make it less nice? no? correct me if i am wrong guys!! I dont have a penis - just going on the odd pub conversation i have had with guys.

Totally not considering any other reasons for getting a circumcision - i am just isolating one issue completely. I have no religeous grounds, it isnt common practice in my country or area, but does happen for medical reasons. It is one of those things that everyone feels differently about.
 
male and female circumcisation are COMPLETLY different, as with females it takes away the ability to reach orgasm. i don't think any decent female deserves to have sexual pleasure taken away from them
 
Okay I can't keep myself out. I'm a sucker for a debate.

I was discussing this with my MALE friends, because there was such a discussion on here about it, and as most of us are women, I wanted to get a man's point of view. Some of them have had it done, some of them have not. All the ones that have it done say its a "must do" if I have a boy. One of them who isn't, actually said he was considering getting it done(he's 22). Two of them were fine the way they were. So from a male point of view, the majority of my friends that I discussed this with pretty much told me if I didn't get it done if I have a boy, then I'm insane. Coming from males, might I stress(again).

My personal preference(sexually), as I have stated before is actually being with someone who is infact circumcised. This isn't only because I think it is cleaner, but it does in fact feel better (and yes, I know what both are like). And the people I have been with who have been, enjoy sex just as much as the next un-circumcised person. They can still get an erection, they can still have an orgasm, and they most certianly can last just as long as a man who isn't. I don't think the sexual pleasure is decreased.

I'm still for doing it.
 
I agree, i would only do it if there was a medical need!
 
i really think this should get locked before more feelings are hurt
 
I agree its going around in circles ... everyone has their own opinions and reasons for their beliefs and thats that
 
I guess it comes down to different opinions of whats best, religous (sp) reasons, something that is the norm for a family or not and so on!

As long as your debate is nice then the threads ok where it is! Nice meaning no swearing 'at' each other, name calling, personal attacks ....you know all the things that would be childish among a group of adults ;)

But remember just because you disagree on one subject doesn't mean you have to take it with you to other topics - leave it behind and continue supporting each other.

x
 
I'm not saying anything about somebody's choice on wether their son will be circumsized or not.

It's a matter of culture and preference.I live in US and it's a common procedure.I have to say that I have never been with somebody who isn't circumsized,I like it this way and thats it.
If I were to have a boy,he would get it done.
End of story,I don't need to justify that to anyone and nobody has to explain to me why they want their son not circumsized.

BUT,the thing that got me debating is making MUTILATION of girls sound like something similar to male circumcision.IT'S NOT!

It's a terrible,terrible thing that causes death and extreme pain,leaves girls scarred for life,takes away their pleasure in sex,not only their pleasure but it brings them extreme pain during sex.Why? So she could be humble to her husband and always remember that she is the lowest human being and deserves this pain.That she is a slut and deserves to be in pain.

It's not even comparable to male circumcision.

I mean,look at a circumsized man and a mutilad woman.Which one of them will suffer more in life?
 
I want to comment on the std thing. I don't know if it offers protection against other stds, but 2 studies in Africa have shown that it offers significant protection against HIV (I think the offical stats were 60% less chance of contracting the virus when sleeping with an HIV positive woman). It's not a matter of cleanliness, it's the a matter of the head of the penis being slightly tougher since it hasn't been protected by the foreskin. There is now a huge drive to get all HIV negative adult males in Africa circumcized. If I can offer my child any future protection against a disease like HIV/AIDS I will do it. It's not an alternative to condoms, but it's a good backup plan. We can talk to our kids about safe sex all we want, but it's highly unlikely that they will wait until they're in a committed relationship before they start doing it. And condoms can break. That is one reason why if I have a boy, he will be circumsized.

I'm also offended at the comparison between female circumcision and male circumcision. And the implication that those of us who would choose to do this are mutilating our children. I have never met a guy who's been snipped who felt he had been harmed in any way.
 
I'm not saying anything about somebody's choice on wether their son will be circumsized or not.

It's a matter of culture and preference.I live in US and it's a common procedure.I have to say that I have never been with somebody who isn't circumsized,I like it this way and thats it.
If I were to have a boy,he would get it done.
End of story,I don't need to justify that to anyone and nobody has to explain to me why they want their son not circumsized.

BUT,the thing that got me debating is making MUTILATION of girls sound like something similar to male circumcision.IT'S NOT!

It's a terrible,terrible thing that causes death and extreme pain,leaves girls scarred for life,takes away their pleasure in sex,not only their pleasure but it brings them extreme pain during sex.Why? So she could be humble to her husband and always remember that she is the lowest human being and deserves this pain.That she is a slut and deserves to be in pain.

It's not even comparable to male circumcision.

I mean,look at a circumcised man and a mutilad woman.Which one of them will suffer more in life?

I agree with every single thing you said, 100%.

Being American, my husband and I are used to boys being circumcised as it is a common occurrence here and we both agreed any boy of ours would have it done as a baby. Just preference, I guess.

Because I saw people getting heated, I skipped most of this thread but I wanted to put in my 2 cents.

Oh yes... I also wanted to add that I know lots of you were surprised by the number of people who said yes to circumcision but DH and I were shocked at the number of people who said no. I definitely think this is just a major cultural difference of opinion.
 
hiv is passes on via the exchange of bodily fluids it had nothing to do with the end of the penis being tougher due to foreskin removal!
 
Can I ask why it is the norm in the US? I have never really thought about this before and dont think it is comman practice here in the UK.
 
i know jewish people do it and theres a big jew community in the us?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,650,282
Messages
27,143,694
Members
255,746
Latest member
coco.g
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "c48fb0faa520c8dfff8c4deab485d3d2"
<-- Admiral -->