Anyone Seen This Yet? SF Proposes Circ Ban - Page 2

[buckeyedoc]

By banning circumcision of minors, the government wouldn't really be legislating parenting by forcing boys/men to be intact. They could still be circumcised at their own request, as legal adults. I know Americans value fierce independence, but we also don't own our children and can't do whatever we want to them, which should include a totally elective, non-medically necessary body modification. Being forced into a decision by the government would be bad, but being forced into "non-decision" is a non-issue IMO.  

[Galatea]

Yep.  People are making this into "taking away my parental prerogative," when really it is preserving the rights of the child.  What is more exciting is that intactivism is common enough now to be talked about all the time.

[brant31]

Originally Posted by mar123 

First of all, a women who has been circumsized CANNOT enjoy sex; I have yet to meet a circumsized man who does not enjoy sex.

Also, how do you KNOW the sensation is increased? My husband and other men I know would argue that point. You might say they don't know, but how does anyone?? Everyone's sensations are different.

I do not want any government telling me how to raise my child. I do not want to live in a nanny state where the government thinks it knows better than I do what is best for my child. The truly scary thing to me is it seems we are headed right down that terrifying road.

The law isn't about your rights, it's about another human being's rights. Yes, state and federal laws actually protect children as well as adults.

You can't serve alcohol to a child under 21, you can't let him or her drive your car at age 12, and you can't cut anything off of your daughter's genitals. Your son needs all his genitals, too.

Fully 97% of women in Egypt have been circumcised, and they would be furious with you for saying they cannot enjoy sex. I cannot even fathom the basis for such a statement, other than outright sophistry. It is a cherished, established part of their culture. Ditto for their neighbors in Somalia and Sudan. Female circumcision is generally performed on women by women. Do you honestly think this would have persisted for hundreds of years if it rendered sex impossible or even difficult? They view it as an enhancement... much as your comments suggest about MGC. Nevertheless, awareness campaigns in all of those countries are drawing attention to the detriments of circumcision and and raising awareness of the human rights aspects.

A simple histologic map of the penis reveals which parts have the densest and most specialized nerve endings. The winner is the foreskin, and the glans is a distant contender. The glans, in fact, is sized and shaped the way it is in order to keep the much more important foreskin taut and supple. Other than that and some aid in insertion, the glans is actually rather expendable. It's a dumb organ, the rock against which you wash your clothes.

So yes, it is entirely reasonable to discuss the sensation function of the foreskin. The only complete, peer-reviewed, published account of this (never academically refuted) is John Taylor's 1996 extensive study in the British Journal of Urology. In it, Taylor identifies clearly the ridged band of the inner foreskin as the primary ejaculatory reflex of the penis, and explains in detail the function the foreskin plays in mediating sexual response. It's an integral, useful, brilliant part of male anatomy and only ignorance of these complex functions leads to support for routine infant circumcision.

Edited by brant31 - 11/20/10 at 10:40pm

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by mar123 

First of all, a women who has been circumsized CANNOT enjoy sex; I have yet to meet a circumsized man who does not enjoy sex.

http://www.adriancolesberry.com/life/?p=687

http://www.adriancolesberry.com/life/?p=554

A couple of interesting blog posts relating to FGM and male circ with commentary on the above - also read the comments. In short - you're wrong.

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

I have removed many posts from this thread.  We do not wish to host comparisons of abortion to circumcision.  Per the UA:

 We do not host abortion debate. Conversations regarding the issues surrounding abortion are hosted with caution. Please see the MDC User Agreement for more information. 

 Please keep this in mind when posting.  Thanks!

[kythe]

[quote]

Fully 97% of women in Egypt have been circumcised, and they would be furious with you for saying they cannot enjoy sex. I cannot even fathom the basis for such a statement, other than outright sophistry. It is a cherished, established part of their culture. Ditto for their neighbors in Somalia and Sudan. Female circumcision is generally performed on women by women. Do you honestly think this would have persisted for hundreds of years if it rendered sex impossible or even difficult? They view it as an enhancement... much as your comments suggest about MGC. Nevertheless, awareness campaigns in all of those countries are drawing attention to the detriments of circumcision and and raising awareness of the human rights aspects.[/quote[dg

[/quote]

Having read the autobiography of the model and UN spokeswoman Waris Dirie, I have been under the impression that part of the *reason* for female genital mutilation (as she calls it) is to prevent women from enjoying sex.  She is from Somalia, where women have no rights at all and are expected to be completely subservient to men.  Women do circumcise their own girls, but not for sexual enhancement.  In some cultures, it is the only way for girls to be valuable in marraige.  

The other human rights issue that comes up with female circumcision is of how the procedure is performed.  Some countries use modern technology and sterile technique, but in some areas it is still very much a backwoods procedure, done with dirty instruments that lead to infection, disease, and even death without proper treatment.  Things like this make it extremely difficult to compare male circumcision in America to female circumcision in other countries.  Even the reasons the procedures are done are very different. 

I can see the point of banning male circumcision, and San Francisco seems like a good place to start because they have a very low circ rate anyway.  But changing culturally based practices is very difficult and it tends to require more than just laws to change people's attitudes and ideas.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by kythe 

Having read the autobiography of the model and UN spokeswoman Waris Dirie, I have been under the impression that part of the *reason* for female genital mutilation (as she calls it) is to prevent women from enjoying sex. 

And, newborn circumcision of males in the US began as a way to prevent masturbation. I have no opinion on whether circumcized women can or do still enjoy sex, because I wasn't circumcized, and have no way to know. However, routine infant circumcision (for males) doesn't do what it was supposed to do, which was all about sexual enjoyment.

[brant31]

It's interesting, my viewpoints and knowledge about life in NE Africa, including Egypt, Somalia and Sudan, have changed in recent years after many conversations with my neighbor. He spent years working for the Ford Foundation in that part of the world, and has incredible stories to tell of interesting, worldly and in some cases very wealthy families from those countries. Nevertheless, FGC and MGC are still practiced. So my point of reference isn't a girl in a village being cut with a dirty piece of glass; it's a wealthy family in Cairo or Alexandria where all the grown women are already happy to be circumcised and expect their daughters to be, too. And in that setting, it is most certainly not done to destroy their sex lives. I'm talking about families much more affluent than I'll ever be.

Remember, Cairo is a wealthier city than even Johannesburg or Cape Town. So, a strong preference for FGC exists in relatively modern locales as well. The point is that it is as futile and unhelpful for us to generalize about the reasons for or conditions surrounding FGC as it is for people in that part of the world to generalize about why North Americans are so wedded to MGC.

[kythe]

True, and the "medicalization" of female circumcision does put it more in league with what we think of as male circumcision.  But don't the reasons sound similar?  Many people in the US who circumcise are wealthy and educated, many men here can be said to be "happy to be circumcised and expect their sons to be, too".  And circumcised men are assumed to have normal sex lives, too.

Yet we are here arguing against it, claiming it as a human rights issue, and wanting to enforce a boy's right to decide when he is old enough.  The World Health Organization has much stronger statements against female circumcision than it does against male circumcision, so I tend to be surprised when people defend it:

http://www.who.int/topics/female_genital_mutilation/en/ 

[Galatea]

Originally Posted by kythe 

True, and the "medicalization" of female circumcision does put it more in league with what we think of as male circumcision.  But don't the reasons sound similar?  Many people in the US who circumcise are wealthy and educated, many men here can be said to be "happy to be circumcised and expect their sons to be, too".  And circumcised men are assumed to have normal sex lives, too.

Yet we are here arguing against it, claiming it as a human rights issue, and wanting to enforce a boy's right to decide when he is old enough.  The World Health Organization has much stronger statements against female circumcision than it does against male circumcision, so I tend to be surprised when people defend it:

http://www.who.int/topics/female_genital_mutilation/en/ 

No one is defending female circumcision - just pointing out the cultural hypocrisy of the idea that female circumcision is always awful and should definitely be illegal, but male circumcision is not as bad and should not be illegal.

FWIW, my sister chose to be circumcised as an adult (she is married to an Egyptian) and she says it makes sex better.  I think she is nuts, but she, an adult, made the decision for herself.  That is all we ask.  If circumcision is so wonderful, then it will survive any legal bans b/c so many men will still choose to be circumcised as adults.    Wait... you say they won't want to be circumcised?  So you mean the whole point of the "parental rights" argument for circumcision is to force a choice on a child that he wouldn't make for himself?
 

[Shanesmom]

I think that's awesome. Hope it works!

[Ann-Marita]

Originally Posted by kythe 

The other human rights issue that comes up with female circumcision is of how the procedure is performed.  Some countries use modern technology and sterile technique, but in some areas it is still very much a backwoods procedure, done with dirty instruments that lead to infection, disease, and even death without proper treatment.  Things like this make it extremely difficult to compare male circumcision in America to female circumcision in other countries.  Even the reasons the procedures are done are very different. 

In areas where the girls are circed using dirty instruments, the boys are also circed using dirty instruments.  (Virtually ALL cultures that cut their females also cut their males.)  But parents generally want what is best for their child(ren), and if they can afford it and if they have access to it, parents will choose a more modern and clean procedure.

But I've only rarely heard anyone decry the male circs done in backwoods ways. 

I think that both female and male circ should be evaluated with the same standards. If the issue is dirty instruments, then let's object to ALL circs done with dirty instruments, male or female.  If the issue is reduction of sexual feeling and damage done to the sexual organs, then let's object to ALL genital cutting that causes damage, male or female (and ritual "nicks" that don't cause much if any damage should be treated the same whether the victim is male or female).  If the issue is unnecessary pain to a child, then it shouldn't matter if the person feeling the pain is male or female.  And if the issue is bodily integrity and consent, then ALL genital cutting of minors should be treated the same, male or female.

ETA:  kythe, I know you don't support circ, and I'm probably preaching to the choir here.  I just wanted to point out that boys get cut using dirty instruments, too.  And that the public seems very hypocritical in the way they look at male circ vs female circ.

Edited by Ann-Marita - 11/23/10 at 3:46am

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Ann-Marita 

But I've only rarely heard anyone decry the male circs done in backwoods ways. 

I think that both female and male circ should be evaluated with the same standards. If the issue is dirty instruments, then let's object to ALL circs done with dirty instruments, male or female.  If the issue is reduction of sexual feeling and damage done to the sexual organs, then let's object to ALL genital cutting that causes damage, male or female (and ritual "nicks" that don't cause much if any damage should be treated the same whether the victim is male or female).  If the issue is unnecessary pain to a child, then it shouldn't matter if the person feeling the pain is male or female.  And if the issue is bodily integrity and consent, then ALL genital cutting of minors should be treated the same, male or female.

ETA:  kythe, I know you don't support circ, and I'm probably preaching to the choir here.  I just wanted to point out that boys get cut using dirty instruments, too.  And that the public seems very hypocritical in the way they look at male circ vs female circ.

Where is the hand clapping smiley when you need it???  Seriously, Ann-Marita makes really good points, and while I also think I'm preaching to the choir a bit, I think that ALL genital cutting should be scrutinized.