1. Comment #52178 by MIND_REBEL on June 26, 2007 at 12:24 pm

It's a shame, but circumcision is the same thing and equally pointless.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

2. Comment #52197 by Deicide on June 26, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Mind rebel: "It's a shame, but circumcision is the same thing and equally pointless."

Ugh, As a circumcised male, I must object. Circumcision has never caused me any problems of any kind. Yes, it is pointless, but the same as female circumcision? absolutely not.

The Abrahamic faiths and the societies created or controlled by them have always been patriarchal in nature; if circumcision was truly damaging to male sexuality, these male-dominated societies would have gotten rid of the practice long ago.

Other Comments by Deicide

3. Comment #52205 by GBile on June 26, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Of course cutting of body parts for no medical reason is pointless. Some time ago somebody on this site proposed the 'gunk theory of circumcision'. How silly can it get.
Culturally or religiously motivated mutilation practices should stop, certainly for children.

Good move, Grand Mufti.

Other Comments by GBile

4. Comment #52207 by happinessiseasy on June 26, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Ugh, As a circumcised male, I must object. Circumcision has never caused me any problems of any kind. Yes, it is pointless, but the same as female circumcision? absolutely not.

The Abrahamic faiths and the societies created or controlled by them have always been patriarchal in nature; if circumcision was truly damaging to male sexuality, these male-dominated societies would have gotten rid of the practice long ago.

You probably got circumcised when you were too young to remember it. I can't imagine being circumcised as an adult. But if I had my hand cut off when I was less than a year old, it wouldn't cause me any "discomfort" now. I'd be used to it. Just like you are.

Other Comments by happinessiseasy

5. Comment #52208 by Spinoza on June 26, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Well... the point needs to be made that just because something is POINTLESS does not immediately mean we simply shouldn't do it.

Baseball is essentially pointless. High Etiquette is pointless (i.e. not wearing white after Labour Day).

Indeed, all art is pretty much pointless (or as Oscar Wilde put it, "quite useless").

Let's not get confused here.... circumcision should be abolished if it's BAD, not because it's useless or pointless.

And female circumcision is certainly bad.

Male circumcision is debatable... it's bad if you think that people should always and only make their own choices about what to do with their own body... but then... this isn't universal ANYWAY... since we clothe and feed and bathe our children before they are able to do so themselves, and though circumcision is religious and some people wish their parents had not had it done to them... it's not always the case.

Indeed, I'm glad I had it done for various, non-religious, non-trivial reasons.

Other Comments by Spinoza

6. Comment #52230 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 26, 2007 at 2:32 pm

@Spinoza - .....eh?
You compare clothing, bathing and feeding (non of which causes any permanent physical or mental damage) with circumcision (which at least causes physical damage and can cause mental damage)? Please tell me how on earth that comparison makes sense to you?

If you want to cut a bit of your nob off then that's up to you, but a child should not have that decision made for them. There is no debate - there are only humane people on the one side and barbaric idiots who like to cut childrens willies on the other.
And you question whether it is bad?

But back to FGM (which is infinatly worse) - it's relieving to see it outlawed, but I can't see it making a difference. Traditions are hard things to break, whether they are allowed or not.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

7. Comment #52237 by PrimeNumbers on June 26, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Just because male circumcision is not "as bad" as female, it doesn't make male circumcision somehow "ok". Deicide, if you were intact, you'd probably have fear and revulsion to having a bit of your anatomy cut off. I know I would. When it's done to a child for no medical benefit (and medical benefits are very very rare indeed) they don't really know any different.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

8. Comment #52265 by Shuggy on June 26, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Deicide:

The Abrahamic faiths and the societies created or controlled by them have always been patriarchal in nature; if circumcision was truly damaging to male sexuality, these male-dominated societies would have gotten rid of the practice long ago.

Ritual circumcision is explicitly a way of taking the baby boy from the mother (that is part of the ceremony) and uniting him with the patriarchy. The question is not whether it damages sexuality (how could it not?), but whether the memetic benefit to the patriarchy is greater.
See http://www.circumstitions.com/meme.html for the memetics.
See http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html for its effect on sex.
See http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html for a comparison with FGM.

Other Comments by Shuggy

9. Comment #52266 by LeeLeeOne on June 26, 2007 at 3:35 pm

The argument should not be getting rid of circumcision because it is "pointless." Both male and female genital mutilation has a point - that's the problem! The point for non-medically necessary circumcision for males is based on an ancient ritual. The point for non-medically necessary circumcision for females is based on ancient patriarchal control. Both of these are borne out of medieval superstitions and ignorance. Both are disgusting. Both are wrong.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

10. Comment #52267 by Paul Creber on June 26, 2007 at 3:36 pm

The issue is very simple. Surgery should be employed only to heal people.

Other Comments by Paul Creber

11. Comment #52295 by fin on June 26, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Deicide:

Ugh, As a circumcised male, I must object. Circumcision has never caused me any problems of any kind. Yes, it is pointless, but the same as female circumcision? absolutely not.

Maybe it has not caused you problems, but you cannot physically feel everything that a non-circumcised male can.

Other Comments by fin

12. Comment #52297 by aznxscorpion517 on June 26, 2007 at 4:39 pm

So it takes a little girl's death for these religious heads to realize female circumcision should be forbidden?

I'm not sure if it does but if it says it should be done in their book and they are not doing it, then are they not defying the will of their god? If so, I think they should be scared but of course they probably aren't. They think they know how their god thinks. They think their god will let this thing slip. And you know what? They will think they are correct that their god will let it slip because nothing will happen. Why? Because their god doesn't exist. Basically, they can preach what they want.

They think they know how their god thinks = They create the rules = Their religion is man made.


Other Comments by aznxscorpion517

13. Comment #52403 by JonnyJ on June 27, 2007 at 1:28 am

In regards to male circumcision, it is most definitely not the same thing as female circumcision, the procedure is not as dangerous, sexual feeling or desire is not affected (once healed) and there are some good reasons for doing it later in life like conditions such as phirmosis which are extremely common.

Also along my travels I've read about medical benefits such as lessening the liklihood of catching AIDs see below:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7791763

If you don't want to read that it basicly says that in a double blind study on the relativity of circumcision and AIDs in Africa the study had such strong statistical evidence that they ended it short to circumcise the other participants.

Remember pragmatism before idealism.

Other Comments by JonnyJ

14. Comment #52406 by JonnyJ on June 27, 2007 at 1:35 am

Actually this is a much better article on circumcision in males and AIDs:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=84342580

Other Comments by JonnyJ

15. Comment #52414 by Bonzai on June 27, 2007 at 1:47 am

Comment #52297 by aznxscorpion517

I'm not sure if it does but if it says it should be done in their book,and they are not doing it, then are they not defying the will of their god?

In fairness FGM is not in the book.

Other Comments by Bonzai

16. Comment #52415 by Bonzai on June 27, 2007 at 1:50 am

Whatever your views are on male circumcision it is an entirely different issue from FGM. Cutting a piece of the clitoris away is not "circumcision". It trivializes FGM by arguing as if male circumcision is somehow equivalent.

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #52419 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 2:08 am

JonnyJ:

In regards to male circumcision, it is most definitely not the same thing as female circumcision,

They can be as similar as you want (eg surgical removal of the clitoral hood), but throughout the western world only the female operation is outlawed (except for pressing medical need), totally, and usually with explicit disregard for religion or culture. It's a complete double standard.

the procedure is not as dangerous

Dangerous enough:
http://www.pulsus.com/Paeds/12_04/Pdf/zwol_ed.pdf

sexual feeling or desire is not affected (once healed)

Feeling certainly is:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells

and there are some good reasons for doing it later in life like conditions such as phirmosis which are extremely common.

So do it later in life, when it's absolutely needed, which is very rare (lots of men are quite happy to have phimosis).

Also along my travels I've read about medical benefits such as lessening the liklihood of catching AIDs see below:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7791763

This has been widely debated elsewhere but in brief:

• Cutting the studies short would lead to a spurious appearance of effectiveness
  
• A greater proportion of circumcised men in Kenya got HIV than the control group in Uganda, so whatever they do in Uganda (such as campaigning against promiscuity) was more effective than circumcision
  
• Circumcision is not cost-free or risk free
  
• Some studies suggest that FGM would also reduce HIV
  
• The circumcised men were treated very differently from the control group, possibly changing their behaviour
  
• These scientific experiments may not replicate well in the field
  
• It's going to be very hard to get the message clear, "this will have an epidemiological effect, but you are not now safe and must go on wearing the condoms"

Other Comments by Shuggy

18. Comment #52556 by Peacebeuponme on June 27, 2007 at 9:17 am

I'm a strong believer that male circumcision should only be done for direct medical reasons. I'm not sure the AIDS issue noted above is conclusive anyway, I'm not sure it takes into account AIDS awareness programmes properly (e.g. I think Ugandan un-circumcised males are showing reduced infection rates because they have better AIDS education), but even if it was its still not a good reason. I think somebody on this site a while ago noted: should we allow mammary gland removal as that would eliminate breast cancer risk?

However, everytime FGC gets brought up anywhere, it seems to get highjacked (by me sometimes I must admit!) by the male debate, which is unfortunate. We should also applaud the "mufti" for this statement, whatever else he says we don't agree with.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

19. Comment #52558 by gordon on June 27, 2007 at 9:26 am

I read these discussions every day but I don't often post. Today I thought I'd make an exception. During my time working in Yemen I was continually questioned about my apparent excess of baggage (a foreskin). Why had my parents been so cruel, Allah will be shocked, its unclean etc. The same people were equally shocked at my apparent non-belief in God (or Religion). It was discussed regularly during the afternoon qat chewing sessions and I used to sketch and write poetry to note some of the discussions. The comments about the excess on my appendage must have rankled as I found the following poem in one of my sketchbooks; -

Foreskin,

Oh how I'm glad for my hooded crow.
With its endless supply of cheese.
Not once have I wanted the cut of my jib,
For some pointless maxim to please.
It slips up a treat,
Gelled up so sweet,
And pouts around a layer of smegma.
Like a wrinkly old snout,
When it's in or its out,
My own, my very own member.

Personally I don't care what anyone does below as long as it's not done to a child but we chaps have nothing to complain about when it comes to bodily mutilation. What I discovered about female GM is a completely different kettle of fish and it is very, very common in the Middle East and Africa. Just imagine chaps, some old hag arrives at your house at the behest of your 'loving' family and proceeds to hack off your dangly bits with a not so clean implement, throws it on the ground and then stitches you up with some grubby nylon thread. You can't urinate correctly; you get infections, severe period pains, cystitis, odours and when it comes to childbirth, doesn't bear thinking about. Later, you can look forward to being stitched up again, childlike, to make your husband a happy man. The only thing to console you is the fact that at least you will be able to encourage your own daughter, when the time arrives, to be closer to Allah!

Other Comments by gordon

20. Comment #52559 by Ophelia Benson on June 27, 2007 at 9:27 am

There is no FGC, it's FGM. It's not circumcision, it's mutilation. The most extreme (but also most common) form cuts the clitoris off entirely along with most of the labia majora, the remains of which are sewn shut. It's extreme mutilation, NOT circumcision. However agitated you are about male circumcision, please don't minimize FGM.

And ain't it the truth about the hijacking; I was just thinking that, with considerable exasperation, when I reached the comment that said so. It is unfortunate. This particular piece is about FGM, not about men and their dicks!

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

21. Comment #52565 by Ophelia Benson on June 27, 2007 at 9:41 am

Yeah, what Gordon said. We cross-posted. FGM is not comparable to male circumcision and it's pathetic when discussions of FGM get yanked into moans about male circumcision. Jeez. It's like whining about a splinter to someone who has an axe sticking out of her back.

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

22. Comment #52579 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 27, 2007 at 10:32 am

The difference between FGM and circumcision (aside from how much worse one is than the other) comes from our attitudes to the two. On a site like this it would be very surprising to see anybody advocating the butchery of a womans genitals.

There seems to be little to converse about - we almost all agree it is cruel and terrible, and all would like to see it dumped into history as a reminder of how vicious people can be when they want too. With the minds on this site that argument has already been won. It is the other people that choose to conduct this barbaric ritual (and would never consider coming to this site) that need to have their consciousness raised, but posting little messages in a forum where you know everybody feels the same about the subject will not achieve anything.

What we CAN do from this site is raise the consciousness of those who visit here and don't consider circumcision to be inhumane. It is a small matter (in comparisson with female ganital mutilation), but it is something that I think we on this site can have an impact upon.

If you know of some way that we on this site can pool our efforts to raise people's consciousness with regards to FGM then I'm sure we all want to hear it.

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

23. Comment #52581 by gordon on June 27, 2007 at 10:38 am

PS, Mind_Rebel. FGM is not circumcision. Don't confuse the two. And FGM is not surgery!

Other Comments by gordon

24. Comment #52582 by Ophelia Benson on June 27, 2007 at 10:45 am

Right, what we can do on this site is change the subject from something that happens to women to something more minor that happens to men. Always a good idea.

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

25. Comment #52588 by Peacebeuponme on June 27, 2007 at 11:36 am

Ophelia - I'm with you. The "C" in FGC was referring to "cutting" rather than "circumcision". I've heard Ayaan Hirsi Ali describe it that way. Agree though that "mutilation" is more apt. Apologies if that caused offence.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

26. Comment #52642 by Ophelia Benson on June 27, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Peacebe,

Ohh, cutting, right. Beg pardon. No, it didn't cause offence!

Other Comments by Ophelia Benson

27. Comment #52651 by Corylus on June 27, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Gordon

I love poetry - I even write it occasionally when in the mood.

I must say though I have never once considered the possibility of rhyming "smegma" with "member" (hmm maybe that's actually a half-rhyme... well anyway)

I just have to say : I am in awe!!

Other Comments by Corylus

28. Comment #52675 by Shuggy on June 27, 2007 at 5:32 pm

It's ironic that Gordon was in the Yemen and his message has been followed by all those "NO! NO! Cutting little girls is oh so different from cutting little boys!" messages, because male circumcision in the Yemen was (at least in the 1920s) worse if anything. See
http://www.circumstitions.com/yemen.html

Here is the relevent section:

As will be seen from the accompanying photos, the whole of the skin from a point just below the umbilicus to the root of the penis, with all the hair-bearing area, and all the skin of the penis, as far as the scrotum, is removed. In some cases, as in photo No.2, a portion of the penile urethra is also removed, of course unintentionally. Several such cases of loss of a portion of the urethra, in one case fully one inch, have been treated at this hospital.

Case No.1, photo No.1, -- An Arab, aged 25, resident of Mugawiya, the slave of case No.2, was circumcised 12 years ago. The wound took about seven months to heal, resulting in left inguinal hernia, with extensive scarring. This man was operated on by Major M.S.Irani, I.M.S., the Acting Civil Surgeon, Aden, on 8th November, 1920, and was discharged cured on 25th November, 1920.

Case No.2, photo No.2, -- An Arab, aged 40, resident of Mugawiya, was circumcised 12 years ago. The wound took about two months to heal, resulting in urethral fistula two months after the operation, the fistula being situated at the root of the penis. This man was operated on 17th November, 1920, by Major M.S.Irani, I.M.S., The Acting Civil Surgeon, Aden, who secured a flap from the skin of the scrotum to form the floor of the urethra, taking over flaps from either side of the scrotum to cover up this inverted flap. The wound exhibited healthy signs of healing, but the man, being very anxious to see his native land, and, probably, his bride, left this hospital of his own accord, on 25th November, 1920, equipped with simple surgical dressings.

In short, MGC at its worst is worse than FGC at its "best", and as human rights issues, they are both the same.

Yes, it's good to see the Mufit of Egypt come out against FGC, but it's going to take a long time to eradicate the practice. Curiously, there is only one instance (a small tribe that gave up MGC) where there is FGC without MGC: clearly each "justifies" the other and if we could stop arguing about which is worse, we could eradicate both more quickly.

Other Comments by Shuggy

29. Comment #52814 by gordon on June 28, 2007 at 6:11 am

Corylus,…Thank you. I tend to be earthy!

Shuggy,… To my knowledge this type of circumcision has been stopped. Certainly I never saw anything of this kind during the eight years I worked there (on and off) and I met a lot of tribal elders from areas most people don't visit. It's unusual for a patriarchal society to come up with anything particularly bad for men unless it is to subjugate a certain class or type, i.e. slaves or as punishment or retribution. Women on the other hand, or those at your right hand………that's different.

Other Comments by gordon

30. Comment #52994 by Shuggy on June 29, 2007 at 12:30 am

Gordon wrote:

To my knowledge this type of circumcision has been stopped.

Glad to hear it, but even the conventional kinds can be fatal, which is sort of worse than FGC.

Boy found dead after botched circumcision

A boy (15) has been found dead by fellow circumcision initiates near
Orange Farm, in the Vaal

June 25, 2007, 06:15
A 15-year-old boy has been found dead by fellow circumcision
initiates near Orange Farm, in the Vaal Triangle. Police say the boy was
among nine initiates circumcised by an illegal surgeon.

A postmortem will be conducted to establish the cause of death.

The other boys aged 15 and 16 have been sent home, while police
search for their surgeon. Yesterday, another initiate died in
Potchefstroom in the North West.

Since the start of the circumcision season, five initiates have died from
botched circumcisions in the Eastern Cape.

Yesterday, police arrested an initiation surgeon in connection with the
deaths of two of the five boys near Port St Johns. His accomplice, a
17-year-old boy who's believed to have run the illegal initiation school,
was arrested on Saturday.

Villagers believe witchcraft is to blame for the boys' deaths.

source: http://www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/crime1justice/0,2172,151431,00.html

Witchcraft, yeah, right.

Here's a followup to the original story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251426.stm
Egypt forbids female circumcision

Other Comments by Shuggy