Circumcision

[Ivor the Engineer]

When I say "interfere", I mean something like calling the police, something with some force behind it. I don't mean trying vigorously to persuade them to my viewpoint. Does that clarify the discrepancy you think you see?

Linda

It sure does for me, Linda. I wish you'd said that several weeks ago, then I wouldn't have called you an apologist for child abuse, which I now fully retract and apologize for.

 

[Lonewulf]

When I say "interfere", I mean something like calling the police, something with some force behind it.

I don't want to call the police either, but I do want the medical field to question the ethics of circumcision.

 

[fls]

I see what you're saying and agree. There isn't any evidence either way that I know of, but there's certainly a good chance that removing part of the clitoris doesn't impact sexual function (of the pleasure variety) in a fundamental way, too, though.
It seems like it would, but it seems like male circumcision would have a more striking effect on that, as well, so who knows?
My position is that bodily integrity is a basic human right for both genders, so I guess I need convincing that the most common (or very common, either one will do) forms of FGC are "worse" than male circumcision before I'll let it go when someone wants to draw a line in the sand and say "this one is ok, this one is bad".
The distinction seems to be based more on assumptions and cultural bias to me at this point.
Unless I've missed something, which is possible.

I think that part of the reason it is perceived as much worse is because there are a wide range of practices, some of which are horrific, whereas male circumcision remains confined to something equivalent to the practices at the mild end of the FGM scale. I can't prove this, but I think that if FGM as practised had consisted only of a cut or small slice of the prepuce (so no risk of hitting the clitoris), that this issue wouldn't have come to worldwide attention. The mild forms of FGM that are roughly equivalent to male circumcision essentially rode in on the back of the clearly "bad" practices.

If the criteria is physical intergrity, then of course both practices should be interfered with.

I know there are some cultures where the social ramifications would be that extreme, but are you sure it's a majority of the ones that practice it?

I don't know, but I doubt it.

I think the social (and possibly economic, even) hardships for some people in some American religious subcultures could be quite impressive. They don't talk about that aspect much, but I sort of sense that it has to be there.

I don't know. I think there are more options open if you wanted to leave, though.

For the non-religious, in all reality, there are no cultural repercussions, but it is assumed that there would be. This is false, but parents still believe that it's true. In the other thread several posters seriously argued that intact men would basically never be able to partake in the normal variety of sexual experiences. And I think they seriously believed that it was/is "the truth".
A social scientist from another culture could survey the attitudes of American parents and it would really look...bizarre.
It seems more "oppressive" when you see it coming from Africa in surveys about FGC attitudes and beliefs, because it gets mixed in with other bona fide manifestations of gender inequality, and I'm not sure how to separate those overlapping influences even in my own mind. But still...there's a lot of "sameness" there between "them" and "us".

That's what I've been saying as well.

For the cultures where those consequences are real, yes.
And those cultures do exist, for sure. I'm not convinced that's the reality a majority of the time, though.

I'm not either. I think it must be quite variable.

Linda

 

[ponderingturtle]

Unless you are masking subconscious guilt, here, there's no need to be either personal or nasty. I have not been. I believe that you love your children and you believe that cutting them with a knife is in their best interests, no matter that babies die in your country from that procedure.

So calling someone mentaly ill is not personal or nasty?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I also noticed Linda has started whining about how the reality(TM) of FGM is much worse than male circumcision. Obviously this is the case because of those special details that she knows about, but refuses to let the rest of us in on I have a feeling that what she means is FGM is much worse than male circumcision as performed in the West. That is a totally unfair comparison. FGM is practiced in the West by plastic surgeons on consenting adults, safely and with no long term health problems.

Be careful though; if you present her with too many of the facts or logic that contradict her position you will end up being ignored.

So you think having to cut open your wife to have sexual intercouse with her really is no big deal? Adding in more bladed objects just adds to the romance?

 

[fls]

I don't want to call the police either, but I do want the medical field to question the ethics of circumcision.

It's pretty clear that they do if you read the various links that have been provided. And I think all the physicians here (including myself) that have commented on this topic have stated that they are not in favour of circumcision, it's unethical, they wouldn't do it, etc.

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

So you think having to cut open your wife to have sexual intercouse with her really is no big deal? Adding in more bladed objects just adds to the romance?

I read this. Then I re-read it. I re-read it again.

I still don't get what you're trying to say here, or what point you're ultimately trying to make.

 

[Lonewulf]

It's pretty clear that they do if you read the various links that have been provided. And I think all the physicians here (including myself) that have commented on this topic have stated that they are not in favour of circumcision, it's unethical, they wouldn't do it, etc.

Certain physicians find it unethical, but yet, certain physicians also do the practice. Is there pressure from the medical society on individuals that continue to do circumcisions?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I read this. Then I re-read it. I re-read it again.

I still don't get what you're trying to say here, or what point you're ultimately trying to make.

Then you need to know more about FGM

Percentage of women who have had infibulation:

Benin (2001) 3.5
Burkina Faso (2003) 2.0
Burkina Faso (1998–99) 0.7
Côte d’Ivoire (1998) 2.3
Egypt (1995) 0.7
Eritrea (2001–02) 38.6
Eritrea (1995) 34.0
Ethiopia (2000) 3.0
Guinea (1999) 7.4
Mali (2001) 1.9
Mali (1995–96) 0.5
Niger (1998) 0.0
Nigeria (2003) 3.9
Nigeria (1999) 3.7
Sudan (north) (2000) 74.1
Sudan (north) (1990) 82.3
United Republic of Tanzania (1996) 5.2

So in the Sudan, most men will need to cut open their wives vagina as it was surgicaly closed.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's pretty clear that they do if you read the various links that have been provided. And I think all the physicians here (including myself) that have commented on this topic have stated that they are not in favour of circumcision, it's unethical, they wouldn't do it, etc.

Linda

No, you (until now) and they have not. Can you provide a link where you or any other physician on this forum and working in the US has said this? Sly (from Europe) said it was useless, Katana (US) was only concerned about pain relief. I don't remember any comments from Ich or Dr. Imago.

 

[Darat]

It's pretty clear that they do if you read the various links that have been provided. And I think all the physicians here (including myself) that have commented on this topic have stated that they are not in favour of circumcision, it's unethical, they wouldn't do it, etc.

Linda

That's just personal ethics isn't it? I didn't think any of the major medical bodies had come round to saying that carrying out a non-medically required circumcision is professional unethical? E.g. a person belonging to such a professional body could be struck off for carrying out such an operation.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

So you think having to cut open your wife to have sexual intercouse with her really is no big deal? Adding in more bladed objects just adds to the romance?

I think human depravity knows no bounds.

What implements do you think boys are being circumcised with in countries that practice FGM in all its wondrous glory?

For example, FGM as practiced by Amazonian Indians uses a "sharp" piece of bamboo to hack away at a girl's genitals.

 

[fls]

Certain physicians find it unethical, but yet, certain physicians also do the practice. Is there pressure from the medical society on individuals that continue to do circumcisions?

I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. How could they unless they weren't providing accurate informed consent? We had a discussion about this in the last thread, and I've changed my mind from my initial stance. I thought that phsycians could and should do more to discourage the practice as a body - like changing the phrase about taking cultural, religious, and ethnic issues into consideration. But then I looked at some surveys about how parents decide, and it looks like most have made up their minds before they talk to the physician, and very few change their minds based on what she/he says. I suspect physician practices reflect societal trends rather than the other way around. I might say every little bit helps, but I worry about degrading the parent-physician relationship over something that won't make much difference.

But then I could find a way to argue that we can make a difference. It seems to me that doctors helped make it fairly automatic and contributed to the high rates in the past. So making it harder (or at least something that requires effort on the part of the parents) could have an effect now.

I really don't know what the general attitude is among those who do the procedure.

Linda

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think human depravity knows no bounds.

What implements do you think boys are being circumcised with in countries that practice FGM in all its wondrous glory?

For example, FGM as practiced by Amazonian Indians uses a "sharp" piece of bamboo to hack away at a girl's genitals.

And you still are not getting it, this is undoing the orrigional FGM to permit intercourse.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. How could they unless they weren't providing accurate informed consent? We had a discussion about this in the last thread, and I've changed my mind from my initial stance. I thought that phsycians could and should do more to discourage the practice as a body - like changing the phrase about taking cultural, religious, and ethnic issues into consideration. But then I looked at some surveys about how parents decide, and it looks like most have made up their minds before they talk to the physician, and very few change their minds based on what she/he says. I suspect physician practices reflect societal trends rather than the other way around. I might say every little bit helps, but I worry about degrading the parent-physician relationship over something that won't make much difference.

But then I could find a way to argue that we can make a difference. It seems to me that doctors helped make it fairly automatic and contributed to the high rates in the past. So making it harder (or at least something that requires effort on the part of the parents) could have an effect now.

I really don't know what the general attitude is among those who do the procedure.

Linda

It's nice to know that I'm not being really ignored, just virtually ignored.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

And you still are not getting it, this is undoing the orrigional FGM to permit intercourse.

No, you are not getting it. Not all FGM includes infibulation. There is a huge variety of tissue removed and cut. This is all classed as 'female circumcision' or FGM, along with infibulation. There are rough groupings used, such as Type I and Type II, but as Linda and KellyB were discussing, the exact details of the damage done are hard to determine from these broad categories.

 

[kellyb]

There are rough groupings used, such as Type I and Type II, but as Linda and KellyB were discussing, the exact details of the damage done are hard to determine from these broad categories.

I'd go so far as to say that there's no evidence that a majority of female circumcisions are significantly "worse" in terms of loss of sensitivity or sexual function than a majority of male circumcisions.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

KellyB, I have a question:

What is the difference between Linda's position on infant circumcision and my own?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'd go so far as to say that there's no evidence that a majority of female circumcisions are significantly "worse" in terms of loss of sensitivity or sexual function than a majority of male circumcisions.

I would agree, so long as you are comparing like with like. I.e. a ritual circumcision of a boy performed under similar conditions (and with similar implements) to a circumcision performed on a girl.

 

[kellyb]

KellyB, I have a question:

What is the difference between Linda's position on infant circumcision and my own?

You think it's a terrible thing to do unless there's a great medical need, and she thinks it's not that big of a deal?