Discussion in 'Community' started by Whitey, Oct 2, 2012.
You're doing an awesome job. Give yourself a hand.
For all of you wrapped up in this thread, I thought you might enjoy some professional reporting on the topic: The Foreskin Renaissance.
So, he was 15 years old and received downright WRONG sexual health information....and now he's scarred for life.I wonder if he also thought he couldn't get an STI from just one time, that HIV was only relegated to gay men, or if coitus interruptus was a surefire plan for birth control....
Renaissance, indeed. That article is what this thread would be if we subtracted all of the vapid irrationallity of the topic.
A tip of my hat to you, Wock. Don't be jealous that I can do such things, OZK. I was born this way.
Oh, she'll feel pain... but not because I'm circumcised.
"Tally has been tugging on his penis for two years. His hand movements are methodical and prescribed. He forms the OK symbol with the index fingers and thumbs on both hands and pulls down on the shaft, stretching it between his spreading hands. After five minutes of tugging, Tally does what any man in a public restroom does: tucks in his shirt, steps out of the stall, washes his hands, and returns to the desk. Tally has what he’s after: his foreskin is slacker. He’s happier because of that. And his co-workers are none the wiser.
Tally is short for Tallywacker...." <--- That's where I stopped reading.
I'd like to address something from the article:
First out, this guy comes from a genital mutilating culture and religion, so he has a severe bias. Secondly, he's saying that they can't anatomically regenerate the nerves - yet no one I've ever seen anything from who does anything related to foreskin restoration claims that it can restores the lost nerves.
However. you can restore the mucosal covering of the glans penis, allowing it to become moist and soft again. And as Tally maintains, it does change the sexual act.
And since the people who are complaining seem to want to keep bumping this thread up to the top, I guess I'll keep humoring them by discussing it.
I imagine Luke has probably gone through a couple of things of KY jelly whilst reading this thread - which he would have no need of had he been left intact.
OZK -- can you at the very least stop the comparisons to FGM? Please? They're very different issues. Vaginas don't function like penises do.
Google "lotus birth". (Do NOT do while eating)
I wonder if they circumcise in a GFFA.
They use the Briss Droid with the yarmulke accessory.
Anyone see the South Park episode, "Ike's Wee-Wee"?
Interesting. I'd like to see more study on lotus births. That's actually kinda cool, I think. Especially considering that chimpanzees do not cut or bite theirs. Makes me wonder what we used to do.
If you care to learn more about comparing FGM and MGM, please read this article. This anthropologist does a very good job of examining the issue of comparisons.
This is how I see the issue. People generally say, "Female genital mutilation is awful! They sew the vagina shut and she'll never receive any sexual pleasure! Male circumcision is just a little snip! How dare you compare the two!"
Well, that doesn't exactly reflect reality. There are four different classified types of FGM:
Type IA: clitoral prepucectomy (excision of the clitoral hood)
Type IB: clitoridectomy (exicsion of the glans clitoris and clitoral hood)
Type II: clitoridectomy and labiaectomy (excision of the glans clitoris, clitoral hood, and labia minora)
Type III: infibulation, clitoridectomy, and labiaectomy (excision of the glans clitoris, clitoral hood, labia minora, partial excision of the majora majora and sewing them shut)
Type IV: anything that is not covered by by I-III, such as nicking the clitoral hood, the clitoris, the labia, or pin-pricking with a drop of blood, or rubbing with glass or sand, pouring of acid.
In Egypt, Malaysia, and Indonesia, FGM is frequently performed by healthcare providers, typically female doctors. 18% of FGM is performed by healthcare providers. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy recommending that certain types of Type IV FGM be performed by healthcare providers to prevent parents from taking their children overseas to have more severe forms done or have them done at home. It retracted that policy upon public outcry and after they realized that it was illegal (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/1088.full#SEC5)
The most commons form of FGM worldwide are Type I and II - no reliable data appears to exist as to which exactly is most prevalent. Type III, infibulation, the most severe, constitutes about 20% of cases. (http://www.unfpa.org/gender/practices2.htm#3) However, to Western minds, we often think of infibulation automatically when we think of FGM. I am certainly not arguing that male circumcision is equal in severity to infibulation.
The clitoris is a very important and sensitive sexual organ and its loss is detrimental to female sexuality. However, women who have undergone clitoridectomy and labiaectomy, and even infibulation, are still capable of sexual arousal, sexual pleasure, and orgasm.
Review finding that the literature does not support the assertion that FGM destroys sexual function or precludes enjoyment of sexual relations: (http://hmb.utoronto.ca/HMB303H/Case_Studies/Kenya-FGM/Consequences_FGM.pdf)
Study in Nigeria of 2,000 women finding that cut women were just as capable of orgasm, 30% more fertile, and more likely to initiate intercourse with their partner and uncut women: (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2905103.html)
Study in Egypt finding that arousal and orgasm did not have significant differences between uncut, type I, and type II: (http://kajog.net/index.php/KAJOG/article/viewFile/14/pdf)
Study in Egypt finding significant differences in arousal, satisfaction, lubrication, and orgasm (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02866.x/abstract) - I will point out that if you look at the numbers, there is a difference, and it is statistically significant, but there is clearly overlap in the groups when you look at the margin of error.
FGM is also associated with about a 50% chance reduction in HIV seropositivity even after controlling for partners and all the other variables controlled for. (http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf, http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses) On a related note, male circumcision increases transmission female to male by 50% relative increase (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60998-3/abstract).
Now, a little bit about the anatomy of the penis. What is the most sensitive portion? The tip! Duh!
Please look at this study from the British Journal of Urology International.
Basically, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis. What are the consequences of this?
Decreased sexual satisfaction and function. (http://www.mgmbill.org/kimpangstudy.pdf)
More elaborate sexual practices, anorgasmia, delayed ejaculation, and other effects: (http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=greg_boyle)
Okay, the point is not the male circumcision is awful and female genital mutilation is okay. Both are awful and horrific. There is literature for both practices that say no sexual effects, and practices that affirm sexual effects. However, I think it's pretty clear that removal of tissue from the genitals is going to affect one's sexuality, regardless of gender. However, male and female bodies are designed differently. Male genital mutilation removes about 10-15 square inches of skin, half of which is erogenous and sensitive to sexual stimulation. The most common forms of female genital mutilation do not remove nearly as much tissue.
In Type II FGM:
The clitoris, a very sensitive area of nerve endings and easy trigger for orgasm, is removed
The labia minora, protecting the vulval vestibule, are removed
In western MGM:
The frenulum, a very sensitive area of nerve endings and easy trigger for orgasm, is cut or removed
The mucosal and outer foreskin, protecting the glans penis, are removed.
In both genders, the external genitalia are important parts of sexual function. Their removal constitutes a serious loss. You can't just cut away, removing parts that society doesn't like, or to give the patient a health "benefit" that they will not see unless they participate in high risk behaviors 20 years from then.
I would consider my mutilation to be equivalent to a hoodectomy and labiaectomy. I still have part of my frenulum and some of the fine-touch receptors. I'm missing a lot. I have also loss the protective covering and mucosa of my glans penis (that is what I'm trying to restore). So it's dried out, a little leathery, and somewhat pitted like most circumcised penises. Many men do not have any fine-touch receptors. Removing the frenulum, in my opinion, is essentially comparable to excising the clitoris. And you may say, "But you're still capable of having sex and enjoying it and ejaculating!" Cut women are just as capable of having sex, enjoying it, and orgasming.
So no, FGM and MGM are definitely comparable and have comparable benefits and effects. Also, every culture that does FGM has a corresponding form of MGM. The next person in line to be cut with the same knife is a man.
And some forms of MGM are absolutely as horrific as infibulation, such as old-style Yemenese circumcision and Aboriginal Australian subincision. And some forms of FGM are less invasive than the most common forms of MGM - the kinds that the AAP recommend its practitioners do if the family requested it.
Even if I'm wrong and FGM in all cases is DEFINITELY worse than MGM, both are still bad, heinous, and should be banned.
waaaaaaaal of text.
OZK, your post is far too long. You need to trim that thing down a bit.
Clitoral what now?
OZK, this is an honest question... genuinely wondering. Are you, perhaps, angry with your parents and family for several reasons and choosing to channel all of it into this circumcision issue? When was it that you became really pissed off about being circumcised? I don't remember you being this passionate about circumcision in the past, but for all I know, you may have been for several years, and only felt ready to talk about it recently... or maybe you've been talking about it for years, and I never noticed... dunno. What led to this?
I can't help but wonder if OZK ever talked to his parents about how they apparently ruined a part of his life by opting for circumcision.
I mean it....if I went through life with my pinkies removed, I'd definitely be calling my parents up for a powwow.
(flawed, yes, but it is closest analogy I can think of, since I've never had any problems of any kind with being circumcised, and the pinkies are the only nonessential part of me that I'd feel OZK-level grief over)
EDIT -- Harpuah hit the nail on the head, while I was editing my post to try to be a bit more sensitive to the issue.
Start at 0:57 and those are my feelings. Gotta love that guy.
Nope, no issues with my family. I've been opposed to doing circumcision for a while, probably for about ten to twelve years. I wasn't always opposed to it being legal - that's probably more recent. However, I have been really unhappy with the fact that I have been cut for probably at least ten years.
This specific bout of intactivism is directly brought on by an incident about a month and a half ago wherein I was horrified to see four females, three medical students and a pediatrician, talk excitedly about doing circumcisions, and when I inquired if one were able to opt out from that portion of the medical school curriculum, the pediatrician told me that she used to feel the same way, but that she stopped being uppity and just did them and that I should do the same so that I don't cause conflict with the other students about me being lazy.
It got me thinking, and the more I thought about it, the more horrific I've realized it is. And it just continually astounds me how callous people are about it.
It's not something that's always at the top of my mind. I have an obsessive personality, and certain things pick my interest from time to time. My religion is obviously the most prominent and long-lasting. An example of current obsessions I have at the moment: genital mutilation, Smallville, medicine, and my Australian girlfriend. These things are cyclical and will fade with time. However, that incident with the pediatrician and the female medical students was incredibly jarring. And how they thought it wasn't a big deal. And that my ethical considerations were simply me being "uppity".
My father has done his best to subtly make it clear that he has no desire to discuss such things, and the one time I talked about it with my mother she expressed regret that they had made a decision that I now disfavor. I consider those issues closed, especially since they will not have anymore children.
Hopefully that answers your questions.
I was mutilated in this fashion, and yes - it was without my consent.
But here's the thing.
When you're a child, everything your parents make you endure is without your consent. If I had had the choice I probably wouldn't have gone to school. I probably would have stayed home and watched cartoons instead. In the parent-child dynamic "without consent" is the name of the game until the child reaches maturity. For an infant, consent isn't really even a workable option. Hell, it's many decades later and I'm still being compelled by my family to do things which I'd rather not do or to which I have nontrivial objections. As in, like, earlier today.
So parents have the right to cut off parts of their children's body for no good reason without their consent? We're not talking about hair or nails that continue to grow - we're talking about permanent, irreversible damage.
No, that doesn't follow from your logic.
Well, they do have the legal right. As far as the abstract moral right is concerned, they were apparently led to believe due to the prevailing thought at the time that there were legitimate health-related reasons. In that sense it is not dissimilar to vaccinations.
There you go again (and you claim to not have parental issues)... you paint this picture of evil parents, strapping their screaming infant down and hacking away at him with a cleaver. Circumcision is done with anesthesia, by a medical professional--it's really not as barbaric as you make it out to be.
Granted... it does sound like the students and pediatrician didn't react to your concerns with much tact... they should work on that, being as they will likely hear concerns about several things (everything) form every patient they encounter.
Um, yeah, except that a vaccination isn't an amputation and the health benefits of being vaccinated vs. not being vaccinated are abundant and clear. The health benefits related to circumcision are either related to preventing STD's (which is a behavioral issue and the child can decide for themselves when they're older) or they're related to improper treatment of the foreskin when someone does have one. Phimosis, UTI's, and penile cancer are caused by forced retraction of the foreskin. All the other health benefits would be the same if done in adulthood.
And we know that it removes half the innervation of the penis. So why do it? Why are women's genitals protected? Female circumcision confers a 50% relative reduction in transmission of HIV, same as male.
I think that hardly any parent who has someone else mutilate their children's genitals or does it themselves is doing so with the intent to harm their child. I've never said that. I've merely stated that it is harm.
Circumcision is only done with anesthesia in about half the cases. They didn't even use anesthesia until recently, anyway. When they do perform anesthesia, it's done with a dorsal nerve block - but the underside is innervate by the perineal nerve, so once they forcibly retract the ventral portion of the penis, the infant starts to scream.
Sometimes infants appear to sleep through it - it's because it's so painful and traumatic that they go into shock.
Even if the anesthesia is done properly and the infant doesn't feel any pain other than the injection during the procedure, the infant will be in immense pain for the next few weeks while the raw glans rubs against the diaper, urine, and feces, until it heals and the skin hardens.
And the infant is still deprived for his entire life of a foreskin.