Quote:
Originally Posted by love4her  Female genital mutilation is not the same thing as male circumcision.
|
Welcome to the Case Against Circ! You have come to the right place to learn about both FGM and MGM. There are a lot of things that you probably don't know about both.
Quote:
| Female genital circumcision or Female genital mutilation is generally the removal of the clitoris and often times much of the outer and some inner labia. |
From the
World Health Organisation:
Quote:
What is female genital mutilation?
Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises 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. There are different types of female genital mutilation known to be practised today. They include:
* Type I - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris;
* Type II - excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora;
* Type III - excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation);
* Type IV - pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue;
* scraping of tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice (angurya cuts) or cutting of the vagina (gishiri cuts);
* introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it; and any other procedure that falls under the definition given above.
The most common type of female genital mutilation is excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, accounting for up to 80% of all cases; the most extreme form is infibulation, which constitutes about 15% of all procedures. |
Quote:
| In addition to the, FGM is often done under horrific and unsanitary conditions. This is clearly distinguishable from how the male circs are done (at least in our culture). |
It is true that in most instances, FGM is performed under unsanitary conditions that compounds the harm because of infections, scarring, etc. However, you should be aware that hospitals are hardly sterile places, and many baby boys IN THIS COUNTRY get infections -- such as from MRSA, the "flesh eating" bacteria -- because of hospital circumcisions every year.
Quote:
| FGM is done to eliminate the possibility of sexual pleasure for women and is used as a form of domination over women. These aspects also are not present in the case of male circ. FGM ought to be criminal because it truly is heinous, dangerous assault upon another. |
Again, only partially true. The reasons that women give for circing their dds are almost exactly the same as the reasons parents give for circing their sons. Read this article by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, one of the leading researchers on FGM in Africa, who studied attitudes towards FGM:
http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/third/hanny3.html
Here's the table alone, in an easy to read format, comparing attitudes:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
Also, you should know that circumcised women report enjoying sex and orgasming -- even, shockingly to me, infibulated women. This may be because the external clitoris is only a small part of the clitoris as a whole, so that when it is removed, a large part but not ALL of the nerve endings are removed, and orgasm is still possible.
Male circumcision removes HALF of the nerve endings of the penis, and destroys the penis' natural functioning. Yes, it still works -- and men still orgasm -- but half the nerves gone and all of the gliding action of the natural foreskin means less sexual pleasure.
Further, as a PP mentioned, it was EXACTLY for the reason of decreasing sexual pleasure and discouraging masturbation that male non-religious circumcision got started in this country. It was for hygiene reasons -- moral hygiene, meaning sexual purity/no masturbation -- not physical hygiene reasons that Victorian-era doctors started promoting circumcision.
These are just a few illustrative quotations:
Quote:
1860"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice to be continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantages; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate."
On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, Athol A. W. Johnson. The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.
"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurous effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts."
Angel Money. Treatment of Disease In Children.Philidelphia: P. Blakiston, 1887. p.421.
1888 "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases."
John Harvey Kellog, creator of the Corn Flake, Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young," Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295.
1895"In all cases of masturbation circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally... To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice, not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, consequently the greater the benefit gained... The younger the patient operated upon the more pronounced the benefit, though occasionally we find patients who were circumcised before puberty that require a resection of the skin, as it has grown loose and pliant after that epoch."
E.J.Spratling, Masturbation in the Adult, Medical Record, vol. 24. (1895): pp. 442-443.
1900"Finally, circumcision probably tends to increase the power of sexual control. The only physiological advantage which the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a condition susceptible to more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It may increase the pleasure of intercourse and the impulse to it: but these are advantages which in the present state of society can well be spared. If in their loss increase in sexual control should result, one should be thankful."
Editor, Medical News. Our London Letter. Medical World,(1900).vol.77 p.707-8
1900"It has been urged as an argument against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensitivity of that exquisitly sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious use of curb and bearing-rein."
E. Harding Freeland, Circumcision as a Preventative of Syphilis and Other Disorders, The Lancet, vol. 2 (29 Dec. 1900): pp.1869-1871.
1901"Another advantage of circumcision... is the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing... This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule, pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extreamly sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision ... lessens the sensitiveness of the organ... It therefore lies with the physician, the family adviser in affairs of hygiene and medical, to urge its acceptance."
Ernest G. Mark, Circumcision, American Practitioner and News, vol. 31 (1901): p. 231. |
From
www.circumcisionquotes.com
Quote:
| Male circ does not even close to being comparable in the violence and violation put upon another. I am not saying that male circumcision is not a violation of a child, but it is irresponsible to analogize the two. |
I disagree. It is always a human rights violation to cut off part of a child's genitals, whether with a rusty razor blade in a remote African village or with a sterile scalpel in an American hospital. Yes, FGM can often be more harmful in its extreme forms -- but MGM is exactly as violent in that the baby boy is tied down and his penis is skinned against his will.
Have you watched a baby boy being circed? Watch this and then tell me the little baby boy is not suffering as much as any girl who is cut:
http://www.intact.ca/vidintro.htm
:
People get really ugly sometimes when you tell them a truth they don't want to hear.
