if genital mutilation were a problem affecting men the matter would long be settled - Page 2

[rambunctiouscurls]

It's perfect Renee, send it and let us know if she responds!

[AntoninBeGonin]

Okay cool. I sent it but it hasn't shown up yet.

~Nay

[tlh]

Originally Posted by AntoninBeGonin

Okay cool. I sent it but it hasn't shown up yet.

~Nay

is this yours?

It is a shame that you do not use your experience as a victim of genital mutilation to advocate for genital integrity for ALL. Both men and women. Male circumcision performed without the consent of the boy being circumcised, is just as wrong and unethical as the violation of young girls. When will you speak up against this?

[Papai]

Originally Posted by tlh

is this yours?

It is a shame that you do not use your experience as a victim of genital mutilation to advocate for genital integrity for ALL. Both men and women. Male circumcision performed without the consent of the boy being circumcised, is just as wrong and unethical as the violation of young girls. When will you speak up against this?

That's me. :

[Stardust27]

Great comments, everyone! Keeping my fingers crossed that they won't be deleted...

If you want to write something more comprehensive, you'll find an e-mail address if you click on "Imprint" (near the bottom of the page, right side). No word limits for e-mails.

Stardust

[wannabe]

Originally Posted by Quirky

Not entirely. See, the clitoris that you see on the outside is the tip of the iceberg, literally -- far more of the structure of the clitoris is on the inside than is on the outside. There are also sexual structures (g-spot) on the inside of the vagina. So a clitoridectomy may be equivalent to the partial amputation of the glans, but it is not equivalent to a full amputation of the glans. There are many women who report still being able to orgasm and have satisfying sex lives after Type I/II FGM, but if you were to remove the entire glans from a man -- I doubt you'd get the same reports.

Great video explanation here:

http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_b...he_said_b.html

But the internal structures are analogous to the shaft, not the glans...

Men can apparently orgasm from stimulation of the prostate.

[Quirky]

But I don't think we can necessarily say that that means that cutting off the external clitoris is the same as cutting off the glans. Just because the structures are analogous doesn't mean they're identical in terms of innervation or function. I think it may make Type I/II FGM seem worse than it is and male circ better than it is to state that removing the clitoris=removing the glans.

[tlh]

Originally Posted by AntoninBeGonin

I wrote this but haven't hit submit. Unfortunately there's a word limit so I can't write all I wanted. How does it sound before I send it to her?

Ms. Dirie,

I whole heartedly support any efforts in ending female genital mutilation, but I can't donate to a site that downplays the terrible cruelty of routine infant male circumcision by saying that "if genital mutilation were a problem affecting men the matter would long be settled." This is entirely untrue. Thousands of boys born in the US each year greet the world by having part of their penis amputated. A baby boy strapped down, with his genitals crushed and cut by a surgeon bleeds just as red as the little girl held by relatives and cut by the local midwife.

Please remove that sexist quote and speak out against the genital cutting of all helpless, unconsenting children and babies. Even if you can't make male circumcision your fight, at least don't belittle our efforts to end such barbarism.

Thank you!
Renee

it's perfect.i hope she gets it.
i saw PAPAI'S this is the comment i left.


"if genital mutilation were a problem affecting men the matter would long be settled"

this is a very sexist remark and totally ignores the fact that every day thousands of boys undergo MGM.please educate yourself on these issues and sign the Montagu resolution and support the MGM bill.

http://montagunocircpetition.org/

http://www.mgmbill.org/

[kmeyrick]

I don't believe in MGM, but at least most boys can go on with normal function of their genitals. FGM results in death, sterility, an inability to feel sexual sensation, chronic pain, infection, elimination disorders, etc. If circumcision had those results more often than not, then Waris is right, it would have been "settled." But a baby who is unable to articulate his pain and unable to recall the event later...it's too easy for people to divorce themselves from the reality: MGM is pointless and cruel. We are victimizing defenseless infants for the sake of tradition, misinformation, and "so they don't get laughed at in the locker room."

[Quirky]

Originally Posted by kmeyrick

I don't believe in MGM, but at least most boys can go on with normal function of their genitals. FGM results in death, sterility, an inability to feel sexual sensation, chronic pain, infection, elimination disorders, etc.

I am not at all trying to minimize the losses suffered by victims of FGM. But first, boys DON'T have normal function of their genitals -- their sensory losses are huge, not to mention the structure and function of the penis is completely altered. Yes, most can still orgasm, but what they have is not normal sex as nature intended it.

And second, the complications faced by victims of Type III/IV FGM are horrific, including those you mention -- but again, this is not the majority of FGM victims. 80% of FGM is Type I/II, and only 20% is the most disfiguring and damaging kind. This is the type that Waris suffered, and yes, its results, especially when done in highly unsanitary conditions, are far worse than most routine infant circs done in modern hospitals. But this is not the norm/majority even for FGM done in less developed countries.

I just think that we need to recognize more the horrors of RIC and understand that it's not OK to perpetuate male circ because it's less brutal and disfiguring than the worst kind of female circ. We need to understand that it's pretty comparable, actually, to the type of female circ most often performed.

If circumcision had those results more often than not, then Waris is right, it would have been "settled." But a baby who is unable to articulate his pain and unable to recall the event later...it's too easy for people to divorce themselves from the reality: MGM is pointless and cruel. We are victimizing defenseless infants for the sake of tradition, misinformation, and "so they don't get laughed at in the locker room."

ITA.

[AntoninBeGonin]

Originally Posted by AntoninBeGonin

I wrote this but haven't hit submit. Unfortunately there's a word limit so I can't write all I wanted. How does it sound before I send it to her?

Ms. Dirie,

I whole heartedly support any efforts in ending female genital mutilation, but I can't donate to a site that downplays the terrible cruelty of routine infant male circumcision by saying that "if genital mutilation were a problem affecting men the matter would long be settled." This is entirely untrue. Thousands of boys born in the US each year greet the world by having part of their penis amputated. A baby boy strapped down, with his genitals crushed and cut by a surgeon bleeds just as red as the little girl held by relatives and cut by the local midwife.

Please remove that sexist quote and speak out against the genital cutting of all helpless, unconsenting children and babies. Even if you can't make male circumcision your fight, at least don't belittle our efforts to end such barbarism.

Thank you!
Renee

I'm sad to say she did not remove the sexist quote that greets visitors when they first log onto the site.

I don't know if my comment was published. It probably was. The guestbook at that site is insane. I don't have time to read 4-5 comments per page, waiting for each page to load.

[Stardust27]

I would have been really surprised if she had reacted. She's got her head very deep in the sand as far as MGM is concerned. :

But at least the two intactivist comments are still in the guestbook. There's one from 28.10.2007, 20:40 and one from 27.10.2007, 00:03 (both currently on page 3).

Stardust

[tlh]

Originally Posted by Stardust27

I would have been really surprised if she had reacted. She's got her head very deep in the sand as far as MGM is concerned. :

But at least the two intactivist comments are still in the guestbook. There's one from 28.10.2007, 20:40 and one from 27.10.2007, 00:03 (both currently on page 3).

Stardust

it's hard for me to believe that someone so against FGM and a victim of it wouldn't have ever heard of MGM.that statement is very harmful and i hope she reads the guestbook and pulls her head out of the sand.