Female genital mutilation in Iraq

[Cpt.Jericho]

The question if skin is less worth than flesh is irrelevant. Even the question if sex is still pleasurable is irrelevant. Cutting off parts without medical need or the consent of the subject is maiming.

[Incubi]

The question if skin is less worth than flesh is irrelevant. Even the question if sex is still pleasurable is irrelevant. Cutting off parts without medical need or the consent of the subject is maiming.

That is a cold and cruel view on the world.

But I got a hint for you, Consequence is everything! You can't call that irrelevant just because you want to rationalize it all into one lump sum! May as well put my Celtic Tattoo and tongue piercing as well. Yup all in the same ball park. You have got to be kidding me right?

[Cpt.Jericho]

Yeah, I'm cold and cruel.

On a sidenote: You're circumsised and are happy with it. Why didn't you have you boys circumsised? If you think that it's better, why did you deny your kids to have one as well? Because you want them to decide for themselves - that's pretty much what you said earlier.
I do not critise circumsisation per se. But I do critise when others decide what happens to a body not their own.

BTW, the argument of tattoos and piercings is also irrelevant (in western countries) as these things are supposed to happen with the consent of the subject.

[Incubi]

Yeah, I'm cold and cruel.

On a sidenote: You're circumsised and are happy with it. Why didn't you have you boys circumsised? If you think that it's better, why did you deny your kids to have one as well? Because you want them to decide for themselves - that's pretty much what you said earlier.
I do not critise circumsisation per se. But I do critise when others decide what happens to a body not their own.

BTW, the argument of tattoos and piercings is also irrelevant (in western countries) as these things are supposed to happen with the consent of the subject.

I am not arguing the consent part. Obviously with my own decisions. But you said a lot more than consent. You said

The question if skin is less worth than flesh is irrelevant. Even the question if sex is still pleasurable is irrelevant

and they are not. They are the consequence. Medical need or consent may be important matters to some degree or other, there is a difference between a mutilated vulva and a penis missing some "near" useless foreskin.

The difference in fact is huge regardless of any similarities we can conjure up in here.

[Timsup2nothin]

Phimosis...

Oh screw it...

Phimosis is a benign condition in which the foreskin doesn't open up sufficiently during a male arousal.

Doctors used to frequently diagnose boys with this condition, forgetting that the foreskin is supposed to keep the penis covered up until the age of ten.

After that it is supposed to open up during the frequent adolescent erections. If it doesn't open it usually translates to a smaller size penis later on. If the boy masturbates however the foreskin opens up anyway.

Phimosis thus only occurs in adolescent boys that don't masturbate.

I was in the unfortunate position to have a hack of a pediatrician, who in a routine check up diagnosed me with this and insisted that I was circumcised (purely for his financial benefit).

Fortunately for me, my parents took me to a second doctor who explained, in front of my parents, what I should do in order to cure myself.

Ah and yes, from a hygienic perspective I make sure to clean myself down there each time I take a bath, for me its preferable over someone taking a scalpel to my junk.

That's disappointing. I was all set to subscribe to some porn sites and bill it to my insurance under preventive care for Phimosis, but since I am circumcised that would be fraud.

[imperium3]

After that it is supposed to open up during the frequent adolescent erections. If it doesn't open it usually translates to a smaller size penis later on. If the boy masturbates however the foreskin opens up anyway.

Phimosis thus only occurs in adolescent boys that don't masturbate.

Actually that's not entirely true, it does also occur in boys who do masturbate, but are doing it wrong (before you ask, look it up, I don't think that's a suitable topic for this forum). In which case circumcision *may* be needed, depending on how far the damage is gone.

[Mopy]

To Dan Bollinger only this is needs to be said: Fatally flawed: Bollinger's circumcision death calculations. When I make numbers up, than I can even proof that the sun turns around the earth and not the other way around.

Hmm good find. The way he got his numbers and drew the conclusion in the link I gave above is wooey. (The way that author pulled STD numbers out of his head was also wooey, but that doesn't do anything to harm his legitimate criticism of the original conclusion). With that said..

I am not sure if you ever had a surgery so far. I had five by now. Every single time I was told that a surgery, as simple as is might be, can lead to death, due to a lot of different reasons. If you give me a few exarmple's of people who died due to a mistakes, than that has hardly anything to do with the circumsition as a praxis. It is a docotr making a mistake and failing. (Some of the cases in the link even point to painkiller overdoses and spesis as the cause of death an not the immediate blood loose from a failed circumsition.)

I see that a lot of the original links were down to doctor mistakes, but in my mind, these mistakes need not have been made if circumcision didn't exist. Even in the cleanest hospitals with the best doctors, I wouldn't be able to support either the female or male procedures being considered routine.

What I will agree with, is that it is an unnessery intervention as long as there is no medical reason to do it. And as sutch I would not have a problem if it got banned unless it is really needed. (If we take religion aside for a moment.)

Agreed on this one.

Secondly, as far as the consequences on average being less harmful than female, is a serious negative effect of an abuse that happens less often to one group less important? I'd have to say no, especially as these have so much in common and due to some of those I mentioned earlier.

There are probably man in this forum, who are circumcisied, so can please one of them tell me if the ever had nightmares and depression and still today pain, because of their circumcision? That would be new to me. I have some muslim friends and I never heart from any of them that the got depression's because of their male circumcision.

I'm not convinced that it's possible to say that circumcision causes depression, has questionable medical gain, causes pain, takes away the choice of individual as to what they do with their bodies (in infant males especially), has potentially deadly side effects (see above), has questionable medical efficacy and dulls sexual sensations - then say it is bad for one group, but ok for another because this second group doesn't experience depression.

Well if one group has all of these symtoms and another group does not I guess it is fair to say that a difference should be made.

I agree that the differences should be made clear, but at the same time the similarities shouldn't be ignored or their significance reduced because the two are not identical.

I think that this is a good article that talks about some of the reasons that the two elicit such different reactions.

This is an interesting article and one sentence made for me pretty clear, what I (and many others) often think.

Here is the important point. When people speak of “FGM” they are almost always thinking of the most severe form of female genital cutting, done in the least sterile environment, with the most drastic consequences likeliest to follow. When people speak of “male circumcision” (by contrast) they are usually thinking of the least severe form of male genital cutting, done in the most sterile environment, with the least drastic consequences likeliest to follow. This leads to the impression that “FGM” and “male circumcision” are “totally different” with the first being barbaric and crippling, and the latter being benign or even health-conferring (on which more in just a moment).

So we should maybe concentrate on getting rid of the most severe forms of circumcision on both sides, before concentrating on the versions with less consequences. When comparing the worst form of FGM to a male circumsition done in a western hospitale, there is no doubt that the male form is less harmfull. And that was what I am talking about. Probably the wrong way to approach it.

I think you might be right on that one. According to the wiki explanation and diagram, the latter types of female circumcision are far more barbaric to the former, and it's the former that I see as having a closer semblance to male circumcision.

The WHO's Type Ia is the removal of the clitoral hood, which is rarely, if ever, performed alone.[47] More common is Type Ib (clitoridectomy), the partial or total removal of the clitoris, along with the prepuce.[48] Susan Izett and Nahid Toubia wrote in a 1998 report for the WHO:

Making things even more complicated, not only is there a type I-IV, but there's also a type I-B, which also varies in itself as to how much is cut away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

And I'm not even sure what's going on with type III and IV outside of 'cut off everything'. Though confusingly, type III also states that it may or may include the removal of the clitoris, which unlike type I-A and I-B have no defined subtype.

I think there is a point on this (imo badly designed scale) at which the similarities between the male a female versions start to become differences. In which case, as you picked out, we're arguing similarities and differences at different points on the scale.

I'd happily go with eliminating the worst first, but must admit to being a little be frustrated when the male version is written off as acceptable or not relevant for discussion (not by you I mean).

Anyway, I hope I'm not offending anyone reading by questioning this. I remain of the opinion that both are destructive regardless of the gender.

Protecting your opinion will hardly offend someone. (Als long as you don't hold the opinion that all humans in their core are good........I miss amtct).

You never know I was concerned at Dragoonfa's comment as to how things can sometimes be accidentally implied. I was also trying to be really careful about sounding like I was endorsing any kind of circumcision in my attempts to connect the male a female procedures. If none of those happened, good news..

I missed the all humans are good discussion, but you missing amtct makes me think I should make a boob joke now

[Usenko]

Clakclak suggested that we START with removing the worst cases of both circumcision and FGM. I think that's a good starting point. However, here's where you'll find a stark difference.

Leaving aside the religious significance, it won't be hard to find a surgeon who will circumcise boys cleanly and carefully, with next to no chance of serious problems long term. Indeed, it is arguably indicated for some conditions (though as previously discussed, this may well be being challenged).

I don't think the same will be said of FGM. The very name (and the refusal of the medical profession to call it the traditional name "female circumcision") speaks volumes; I know a few surgeons, and NONE would be likely to do such an operation under any circumstances.

The bottom line is that, whether or not it is justifiable or necessary (and there's plenty of room for debate), a circumcision CAN be done safely and without leaving harm. By its very nature, on the other hand, FGM is ipso facto harmful.

[Mopy]

Leaving aside the religious significance, it won't be hard to find a surgeon who will circumcise boys cleanly and carefully, with next to no chance of serious problems long term. Indeed, it is arguably indicated for some conditions (though as previously discussed, this may well be being challenged).

I don't think the same will be said of FGM. The very name (and the refusal of the medical profession to call it the traditional name "female circumcision") speaks volumes; I know a few surgeons, and NONE would be likely to do such an operation under any circumstances.

The bottom line is that, whether or not it is justifiable or necessary (and there's plenty of room for debate), a circumcision CAN be done safely and without leaving harm. By its very nature, on the other hand, FGM is ipso facto harmful.

Agreed that you can easily find people willing to circumcise boys in a clean environment, but if the same could be said for females, would that make it ok? If so, we disagree. If not, then the environment in which the act is carried out is not the concern but the effects of the procedure itself and the implications of doing so without consent.

As for a circumcision being done without harm, I disagree. I would consider loss of sensation, removal or damage to the frenulum, scarring, and the lack of consent harmful. If we're going to address the cutting of genitals, it should be addressed for both sexes.

All ready mentioned and being discussed. Some insist it is the same thing, but it isn't. Not even close. Mopy is attempting to explain how it is not more akin to castration than circumcision, but I don't buy it.

Just to note, I'm not saying they are the same thing as that wouldn't physically be possible. I am saying that some types of FGM, including the type I-B according to the WHO have similarities I think are worth considering. (list of types on the FGM wiki page)

In fact the comparison is very offensive. I am circumcised and it Works very well thank you very much. In fact I have a very pretty penis that is clean and very fertile ( six children ) I feel sex intensely, and I am easy to clean. only some skin was removed exposing the almost perfect ...never mind that, back to topic.

So I did offend someone afterall Lucky I apologised in advance!

FGM removes body parts and it removes the ability to enjoy sex for most if not all the women.

Male circumcision removes body parts too doesn't it? As does the female kind, which in my eyes makes them both bad.

In addition, how many physical side effects does it take before the un-consenting cutting of genitals is deemed acceptable? In my opinion, one is too many.

It keeps them in line with a male dominant society.

Certainly part of the reason that a ban needs to be enforced.

There simply is no comparison, and the notion offends me. Popcorn politics at its best. Poor rationalization at its worst. Tattoos and body piercings are more risky than a circumcision when done properly in a medical facility by a doctor.

Tattoos and body piercings are done by choice. Infant male circumcision is not.

No I have no problem with people who are not circumcised, my three boys are all uncircumcised because I do feel it should be a choice. Same reason I wait for the girls to ask me to get their ears pierced before I do it.

Um.. well I was ok until we got here, but it sounds like you have moral objections to forced cutting too. Can you see that I'm making the comparison not because they are exactly the same, but because I have similar objections to how and why they're carried out?

What I have a problem with is the exaggerated lies about circumcision, and the comparison to the American clean methods, to those of regions who do not even have doctors do it. It all stinks of pride and prejudice to me.

On the environment in which these procedures take place, would it be ok if FGM took place using the American clean methods? If not, then I have to assume it's not the environment you're objecting to, but something else. You will find similar 'something elses' in the act of male circumcision too, though as I mentioned earlier, the extent of which depends which FGM you're talking about. (List of the four types on the wikipedia FGM page). Imo no male or female cutting of genitals is acceptable unless it's for medical purposes, regardless of how few or how many mental or physical side effects there may be.

Sorry, I don't know what you meant the by the pride and prejudice part. The only thing that came to my mind was Jane Austin

EDIT: PS while I Am offended by the notion, I Am not offended to the point of being upset or unable to handle a discussion. I thought I would point that out.

Now to see how badly I broke the quotes this time.

[Usenko]

Agreed that you can easily find people willing to circumcise boys in a clean environment, but if the same could be said for females, would that make it ok? If so, we disagree. If not, then the environment in which the act is carried out is not the concern but the effects of the procedure itself and the implications of doing so without consent.

I think the fact that you can find people willing to circumcise is more important than you think - it's a general description of how much harm is done. Now, you don't agree that it's harmless, and you know, some surgeons don't do it as a voluntary procedure because they agree with your take on the issue. That's kind of the point - there's room for debate.

The fact that no surgeon will do an FGM in clean conditions (it's illegal, but even if it wasn't, I'll bet you STILL wouldn't find a surgeon to do it) is a mark of how unambiguous the case is here.

Summary: You can find a surgeon to do a circumcision in modern conditions because the amount of harm it does is debatable, and some see it as benign. You can't find a surgeon willing to do a clitoridectomy because the amount of harm it does is completely obvious, and NOBODY sees it as benign.

[Mopy]

I think the fact that you can find people willing to circumcise is more important than you think - it's a general description of how much harm is done. Now, you don't agree that it's harmless, and you know, some surgeons don't do it as a voluntary procedure because they agree with your take on the issue. That's kind of the point - there's room for debate.

The fact that no surgeon will do an FGM in clean conditions (it's illegal, but even if it wasn't, I'll bet you STILL wouldn't find a surgeon to do it) is a mark of how unambiguous the case is here.

Summary: You can find a surgeon to do a circumcision in modern conditions because the amount of harm it does is debatable, and some see it as benign. You can't find a surgeon willing to do a clitoridectomy because the amount of harm it does is completely obvious, and NOBODY sees it as benign.

Fair points. I suppose it's just a little strange in my mind that the harm could be seen as ambiguous or incomparable in either case. As you say, people think that or they wouldn't do it. Whether it's part tradition, the physical differences between the procedures, societal norms or something else, it's certainly undeniable that many (I think most from what I see reading around) don't share my thoughts.

As mentioned earlier though, an enforced ban on anything like the OP's news thread (even though the truth of that particular report has been questioned) is a jolly good start.

[Usenko]

Correct. And I am sure that we have agreement (even if you think the practice of male circumcision is bad) that if it must be done, it's better that ANY operation (especially on the genitals! Of a child!) should be done in a hospital, with the latest and best medical care. And if it can't be done in a hospital, then one needs to question why it's being done at all . . .

[Skism]

The question if skin is less worth than flesh is irrelevant. Even the question if sex is still pleasurable is irrelevant. Cutting off parts without medical need or the consent of the subject is maiming.

I agree completely.

Anyway http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28466434

This 'edict' may in fact be fake.

several women in Irag have also gone on to twitter to say tht this is false:

http://news.yahoo.com/jihadists-iraq-or ... 05853.html

[Usenko]

It occurs to me on reflection that there is an objective difference between the two. Male circumcision involves removing skin, nothing more. Nerve endings are removed, but only those in the skin itself. And yeah, that has some impact on sensation, but a comparatively small impact.

FGM involves the complete removal of an organ. A small one, to be sure - but an organ, complete with nerves and a complex blood supply.

The equivalent operation on a male would be complete removal of the penis....

[Sir Crashalot]

So, outside of this story about FGM, does anyone here actually care about the ongoing genocide of non Muslims by ISIS in the Middle East?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... reats.html

All this raging at Isreal, a 70 odd page thread on the Ukraine yet these are nothing compared to what ISIS is doing.

[imperium3]

I guess people are rather put off doing something because they remember what happened the last time people suggested we invade Iraq.

But you're right, ISIS shouldn't be free to conquer. If we're supposedly waging a war on terror, well, those are cast-iron terrorists, perhaps we should sort them out? It's one of the few things you could probably get a UNSC consensus on (although the Americans have been saying that it's an internal matter for Iraq, that may just have been because Syria was doing some bombing).

Governments have been very quiet on it too. I suppose it's a combination of guilt from the consequences of Iraq invasion, that returning would admit that the invasion was a mistake and so was leaving, and cynical calculation that this will hurt Iran and Syria (for some reason designated as the sources of all evil) a lot more than it hurts us.


As an aside, I have to reluctantly tip my hat to ISIS's military leadership. They must have some pretty damn good commanders in there, the way this campaign has been run. Knowing when to bail out in Syria, launching a massive coordinated attack to sweep away the Iraqi army, and now taking ground from the Kurdish peshmerga that a few months ago analysts were predicting would clean them out. Talk abut doing a lot with what you have. I'd have expected a guerrilla force like that to have quickly stalled once the air force comes into play, given that much of the country is open desert.

[Cpt.Jericho]

Maybe this deserves a designated thread.