Unkind Cuts

POSTED BY: MMM1110 | MARCH 25, 2009 "Hack off the penis of any male who "circumcises" a female. If this were actually done, the problem of female 'circumcism' would be solved once and for all."
"I wanted to add to my origninal post that in cases like this, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth must apply."
"Yes, I know women actually carry out the barbaric practice. However, men want it done. If those very same men ended up with no penises, they would rethink their position. If they did not, they would still be mutiliated. What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

So would MMM1110 also say this? "Hack off the clitoris of any female who 'circumcises' a male. If this were actually done, the problem of male 'circumcism' would be solved once and for all."
"I wanted to add to my origninal post that in cases like this, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth must apply."
"Yes, I know men actually carry out the barbaric practice. However, women want it done. If those very same women ended up with no clitorises, they would rethink their position. If they did not, they would still be mutiliated. What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

FGM is not just in Muslim countries. Christians and animists in Africa practice it, too. It's horrific and should be outlawed.

Don't be so sure that feminists aren't against male circumcision! It's a terrible practice as well. I can see where it comes from - the issue of cleanliness in cultures where bathing water is a luxury. However, it's a moot point in the West. Fortunately, more parents are choosing not to mutilate their sons as time goes on.

Infibulation is not the norm. Most female circumcisions are cutting off the labia or clitoris, or cutting off part of the labia and clitoris, not both as the feminist movement through media has conditioned us to believe. As a feminist in the movement told me, "To have comparisons between female and male circumcision would water down their appeal to end female circumcision as male circumcision is mostly accepted (in the US)" Alarmingly, now there results a backlash in other nations that see males and females equally and are circumcising males (African studies, flawed) and females for the same reasons in what was once intact cultures. Two studies have been published showing similar HIV protection in circumcised females. See male circumcision and hiv . org.

How about equality of the sexes under law in the US? Support mgm bill .org now submitted to congress. Males die every year from circumcision even here in the US. There is no comparison because of the location of sexual nerves, cutting off part of the labia and clitoris still would preserve the female sexual nerves in the sulcus, whereas cutting off the foreskin ALWAYS cuts off 65% - 85% of the sexual nerves located in the foreskin tip. To say male circumcision doesn't have an effect sexually is ridiculous. Further it removes the most sensitive parts of the penis. The glans is sensitive to heat and cold not to fine touch like the foreskin. For many men though, then glans are the most sensitive because they are missing their foreskin (ridged band) and frenulum. See Sorrells et al. Fine Touch Test of the Adult Penis and Taylors Frenulum Delta and its Loss to Circumcision. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

"God's will" is whatever each Shaman who collects cash from the superstitious and ignorant for interpreting "god's will" says it is.

Why just look at ONE superstitious anti-social preaching? Let's look at polygamy, snake-handling, misogyny, anti-science, political, social and economic and educational repression, silly dietary restrictions, slaughtering of "non-believers and heretics" and the whole spectrum of evils wrought on this world in the name of "god."

Both male and female circumcisions are barbaric acts of organ mutilations. Yet however I never heard of a male dying as a result of this surgery, yet a large number of females do succumb to this unneeded cutting. Some of the females die because of infection , yet most die during childbirth among women who submit to the so-called ‘pharoahs’ circumcision where besides the cutting there is also sawing.

"Reply to KJohnson3,
Yes, I know women actually carry out the barbaric practice. However, men want it done. If those very same men ended up with no penises, they would rethink their position. If they did not, they would still be mutiliated. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posted by: mmm1110 | March 25, 2009 4:19 PM"

Well, mmm1110, good luck with your plan. Keep us posted.

Reply to KJohnson3,

Yes, I know women actually carry out the barbaric practice. However, men want it done. If those very same men ended up with no penises, they would rethink their position. If they did not, they would still be mutiliated. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

"Mutilation will continue no matter how much we protest. Surely we can control what happens in the US, but when it comes to other countries, it is the same old American hubris..."

Adrienne,

While you're right that we cannot control what happens in other countries, we can certainly stop refusing asylum to women who flee to the U.S. to escape the mutilation ritual.

There have been repeated cases over the past several years of young women being denied safe harbor here because the issue isn't "life and death."

Maybe if we showed a willingness to help these women avoid their fate, we'd be in a better position to oppose the inhumane policies of their countries. We'd certainly be demonstrating to our own female population that women's pain and suffering are as important as men's.

"Hack off the penis of any male who 'circumcises' a female. If this were actually done, the problem of female 'circumcism' would be solved once and for all."
Posted by: mmm1110 | March 25, 2009 1:36 PM

Well, no, it wouldn't, mmm1110.

Problem is, men don't perform the procedure; it's done by women and among women. Yes, males set the standard, but they don't do the deed.

fr phil6:

>Barack Obama approves of the killing of babies while they are still in their mother's womb. It is a barbaric act that is becoming more and more morally outrageous as technology is showing all of us what these babies look like before their lives are snuffed out by the abortionist's knife.

Oh puhleeze. Abortion is a LEGAL medical practice, and President Obama is (thankfully) pro-CHOICE. Get a clue, and grow UP. Are YOU going to adopt all of the babies who may be aborted? If YOU don't like abortion, don't HAVE one.

Simple as that.

I wanted to add to my origninal post that in cases like this, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth must apply.

Hack off the penis of any male who "circumcises" a female. If this were actually done, the problem of female "circumcism" would be solved once and for all.

Actually, I am in the hospital right now, with my wife, with perfectly healthy baby boy.

Your attitude towards his body, and his rights, are appauling. How dare you think he should be given any less protection than a girl.

Nobody took a knife to my daughters, and I'm sure as hell no one is going to take a knife to my boy.

It's people like you who threaten the health and wellbeing of PEOPLE.

Imagine if those who took knives to PEOPLES genitals got an equal punishment.

Next time you're in the kitchen give yourself a test cut and then picture an innocent child getting the same.

Gender is irrelevant. It's just that here, in the US, a bizzarre chain of misinformation, bogus religious claims and general igornance have lead us to torture baby boys instead of girls.

Wrong wrong wrong.

There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend FGM, and as well as using the same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision.

Female and male circumcision are more comparable than some people think. Firstly, in countries where female circumcision is done under unhygienic conditions, male circumcision is too (broken glass, no anaesthesia, etc). Many boys die each year in Africa from tribal circumcisions – 22 young men died last year in just one province of South Africa. In some countries though female circumcision only involves the removal of the clitoral hood - the anatomical equivalent of the foreskin - and is done to babies in sterile conditions, even with pain relief. Check out how it's done in Egypt, Malysia or Brunei, for example. Circumcised women choose to have their daughters circumcised, citing how it's cleaner, good sexually, reduces secretions and smegma and is generally hygienic, and also mentioning studies showing circumcised women have lower infection rates. Basically the same reasons that people use to defend male circumcision. It's just a cultural difference.

The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice fgm will interpret western objections as something more than blindly hypocritical cultural imperialism.

"For all who are comparing female and male genital procedures, these are not in any way equivalent practices. "

Actually, they are.

The difference being purely cultural. You've been enculturated to thinking that male circumcision isn't a traumatic experience and doesn't cause any loss of functionality. If we were to wait to circumcise males at the same age that females are mutilated, it would be just as traumatic, and just as prone to loss of function. If we circumcised females at 1 to 2 days after birth, they'd grow up not thinking anything different too.

Ergo, ANY circumcision, male or female, other than for the purpose of medically correcting a developmental or disease-caused loss of function, is the act of barbarians and equivalent to the torture and maiming of infants and children.

I let my wife convince me to have my two sons circumcised, and I've regretted it ever since. Anyone else see an analogy between Adam and Eve and the fruit of forbidden knowledge?

lepidopteryx wrote:

Any deity/deities that would require me to offer him/her/it/them a piece of my child's body as proof of my devotion is not worthy of my worship.
---------------------------------

Amen.

Both are appalling. Supporting male circumcision, albeit different than female circumcision, is feminist and Jewish hypocrisy.

Any deity/deities that would require me to offer him/her/it/them a piece of my child's body as proof of my devotion is not worthy of my worship.

I am so sick of this topic. Mutilation will continue no matter how much we protest. Surely we can control what happens in the US, but when it comes to other countries, it is the same old American hubris that led us down the path of promoting democracy in places like Iraq, where thousands of years of culture and tradition undermine the whole idea. let's concentrate our efforts on fixing things at home before we go meddling around in other cultures. That being said, genital mutilation is abhorent, but then so are hundreds of other types of atrocities perpetrated by ignorant, misguided, imbecilic third world sub-humans.

Of course FGM and MGM are different. There are similarities. The origin and background are similar -- the tradition of male circumcision is for dulling the male sexual organ.
"female, the mutilation involves removing the hood of the clitoris (analagous to the foreskin in a male) and also some or all of the clitoris itself(analagous to the head or glans of the penis and erectile bodies of the penis)." The analogy is not really a good one. The male and female parts are so different. However, male circumcision removes over 10,000 fine touch nerve andings and this is MORE than the clitoris has. The glans is not very sensitive. Male circumcision removes the most sensitive partS of the male genitals. IMHO male circumcision is worse than FGM that does not remove the clitoris.

A male has the right to the full sensation of his natural body. He and his partner should be able to have natural sex with the most sensitive parts of the genitals.

Male circumcision is unnecessary. My husband and I chose not to circumcise our son after talking to many doctors. The only doubt we had to NOT circumcise him had to do with social pressures our son might endure by being different by American standards. Female genital castration is heinous and should be outlawed.
Both have to do with religious culture. I have abandoned my religion (Christianity) and all its dogma. I see how people follow their faith so blindly that they can't progress...they get stuck in ritualistic thinking that is sometimes inhumane, as in the case of circumcision, but just can't see it.

Phil6:
Are u pro Iraq or any war for that matter? Pro death penalty? Or r u selctive in your "pro life" attitude?

Your either "pro life" for everyone or u shut up.

God (doesnt exist but for those that think he does...) made us the way we are so just leave it u religious nuts. You are his creation, he put all the bits there for a reason, get over yourselves and stop mutilating kids who have no choice in the matter.

Sick f*&ks

I am stunned by the lack of sensitivity in the comments I have read. The first starts out reminding us that Obama is a baby killer and the rest go on to debate the horrors of male circumsicion and a few want to castrate male babies. What a bunch of "sensitive" commentors! Boy babies should probably not be circumcised, but when they are can still function when passing urine and still feel sensation in the penis.I am in no way dismissing concerns on either side. Female circumsicion on the other hand is meant for the sole pupose of denying full function of the genitalia as seen through the prism of ignorance through religious and cultural belief. Take a much used sharp intrument. Slice off any tissue outside of the vagina,sew up wound leaving a very tiny opening to pass urine and menstral blood. Husband wants to have sex, cuts opening large enough to insert himself, after, sews up opening to original size. You get the picture. Where is your humanity? Apparently there is none in this discussion. I feel sad to live in a world that has so little compassion for the suffering of other human beings.

"Supporters argue that it controls women's tendency to promiscuity."

Do you know the real way to cut down a woman's libido? Marry her.

Barack Obama approves of the killing of babies while they are still in their mother's womb. It is a barbaric act that is becoming more and more morally outrageous as technology is showing all of us what these babies look like before their lives are snuffed out by the abortionist's knife.

"For all who are comparing female and male genital procedures, these are not in any way equivalent practices. "

Well, yes, FGM is really horrific. I think the point I (and others) were trying to make is that if we are going to condemn this practice in other cultures, we need to examine our own practices as well. While one may be more extreme than the other, the underlying fact of the procedure- that one is permanently removing part of a child's genitals for cosmetic/religious reasons, is the same.

For all who are comparing female and male genital procedures, these are not in any way equivalent practices. The major difference between the two is that female "circumcision" is not really circumcision at all. Circumcision in a male involves removal of the foreskin of the penis only. In a female, the mutilation involves removing the hood of the clitoris (analagous to the foreskin in a male) and also some or all of the clitoris itself(analagous to the head or glans of the penis and erectile bodies of the penis). This removal results in painful sex and a loss of the main female sexual sensory organ in the body. Its meant to prevent a woman from enjoying the sexual experience in any way and even to make her averse to sex due to the pain involved. The same can NOT be said of male circumcision, though sexual sensation may be affected by lack of foreskin (though this is debatable as this is not an erectile tissue in any way), it is not meant to prevent or cause pain during sexual activity in the male. This is a very distinct difference between the practices and the reason "feminists" finds it appaling.

Obviously genital mutilation of ANY baby is morally wrong. Unfortunately it happens here in America every day, but we are so used to the concept of male circumcision that we don't stop to think about what is being done to these babies or how wrong it is. Every day baby boys are circumcized without even the benefit of anesthesia. If adult men choose to undergo this procedure, that is their right, but it is simply unethical to perform this on a baby who cannot give informed consent. It is simply wrong, no matter how you look at it. It is really only a matter of time before this archaic procedure is abandoned in civilized countries. To remove part of a baby's genitals is an assault, plain and simple.

FWIW, I am the Jewish mother of an intact son, and none of the boy babies born in my families current generation have been circumcized. There is considerable basis in Jewish law AGAINST this practice, as Jewish law expressly forbids mutilating ones body.

I like Lufrank1's idea. This person said "preach" that male babies in such communities should be castrated?" I say don't preach it. Do it. Just castrate all male babies with no questions asked in societies that mutiliate female babies. That is equality.

Yes. What about MALE circumcision? It is as much of a "tradition" as any other religious ceremony. Luckily, sanity is starting to hold sway over parents and the little baby butchers and their barbaric rituals.

To not have this be half of the topic is absurd and pathetic. My parents had me mutilated and I am not too happy about it.

Oh, yeah. I guess the little boy babies are tough enough to take it and will never know what they are missing. . . . .

Interesting very few feminist have any problem at all with male genital mutilation also know as circumcision.

Horrors and more horrors. How can one take it all in? And to think, most of the horrors in this world are not "acts of G-d" but were invented by humankind to practice on other human beings---often children or a detested group. If it isn't ethnic cleansing, it's religious rites or else protection of our country, our turf, against some threat, putting people in prison and torturing them, and always managing to come to the same solution, the same requirement: harming another human being, trauma upon someone else. Must power always equal sadism? It is hardly ever called that, but what else can you call it, really? Governments claiming the right over
their citizen's bodies, or religions
demanding the insolent right to carve themselves into one's flesh--and I beg to remind anyone reading this, that none of this is done by the folks who people insane asylums, mental hospitals, or even, for the most part, live in prisons. It is done by or in the name of "authorities." Think about it.

Until such time as organized religion ceases with their subjugation of woman, the orchestrated and choreographed mutiliation of women will continue. That women continue to participate in any religion that so dominates their community that it threatens the very health and existance of their own daughters, is obscene. Get educated. Get emancipated. Put your human rights above the ignorance of the male dominated society that denigrates you women. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for your daughters and their daughters. Stop the violence against women in the name of religion.

Nothing will ever stop the mutilation of women by Muslims. Better we hoe this practise insn't in our future. Europe is closer and with Sharia law inacted in the UK we ourselves should prepare for the coming onslaught.

Maybe not this generation but...

Our tax dollars are being used by AIG to promote Islam and Shariah law, which provides support for terrorist activities aimed at killing Americans and destroying America.

That's because a branch of AIG promotes Shariah-compliant financing under supervision by the Shariah Advisory Board which you see pictured below. Now that the federal government owns AIG, this Board is being paid by your taxes.

The Shariah Advisory Board is comprised of the following members: Dr. Mohammed Ali Elgari from Saudi Arabia, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani from Pakistan, and Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from Bahrain.

Dr. Usmani is the son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who is the leading Shariah authority for Shariah-compliant finance in the world and the author of a book translated into English in 1999 that includes an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country or government.

From Obamas book Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review our operations, supervise development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah-compliance of these products and our investments."

Hey, what about MALE circumcision? Genital cutting is genital cutting!! Everyone is afraid of discussing it because everyone in the US is afraid of offending the Jews, but it is a crime nonetheless. Pass a law to protect ALL children, male and female!!

The Hadith, the alleged sayings of the Muslims’ prophet, have the legality of a divine law according to the Sharia (Islamic Law).
There is a Hadith reported by Umm 'Atiyyah: "A woman used to perform circumcision in Madinah. The Prophet (s.a.w.) said to her: 'When you circumcise, do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.'" (Related by Abu Dawud & al-Bayhaq) .
This is enough to make this barbaric act a Divine order unto those who want to be “good Muslims”. Even many of those who do not believe in Mohammad and his message from among the nominal Muslims adhere to this practice because of the prevalent belief in many Muslim majority societies that “No self respecting man would want to marry an uncircumcised woman”.

Why not "preach" that male babies in such communities should be castrated?
That would help eliminate the stupid abuse of females eventually.