Personally, I would be fine if all the witch doctors and Islamofascists wanted to do was a hood removal. The clitoral hood's the female equivalent of the male foreskin anyway, and like the foreskin, really doesn't serve any purpose other than to get infected. But I've yet to here of any FGM performers advocate just the removal of the hood. As you can see on page 47 of this report (or, if you're looking at the PDF page number, page 55) the overwhelming majority perform either a removal of the clitoris and large chunks of external genitalia, all external genitalia, or what I mentioned before while sewing the wound together.
I have many reasons. But the biggest one is that the risks of waiting are greater than the risks of complications of the procedure when performed on infants using local anesthesia, or even without using local anesthesia. Penile cancer, for instance, is not a common illness, but it does have a higher chance of happening and leading to a fatal or mutilatory outcome than the risks of a circumcision procedure, and circumcision reduces your chances of contracting it to essentially zero. Hell, the risks of being put under general anesthesia for any procedure are higher than the risks of circumcision as a child under local anesthetic.
...you seriously argue the foreskin has no function? What about, I don't know, natural lubricant, lots of nerves you're missing and so on?The human body is quite flawed, and the foreskin is not the only part which serves no function other than to get infected. The appendix and wisdom teeth have the same problems as well, and if there was a way to remove them or prevent them from coming to be that could be performed on an infant that had a lower risk of complications than being put under general anesthesia as an adult, I'd advocate performing those operations as well.
You misunderstood. I'll repeat, if as the article claimed 50% of intact guys will encounter issues with their foreskin in America, why in Europe this isn't so?Something doesn't have to be epidemic to be a medical problem. UTIs are a pain, but they won't kill you. Phimosis is a pain, but it won't kill you. A higher risk of STDs is a pain, but you can help counter that by being careful. Penile cancer sucks, but it's not particularly common. The risks that come with not being circumcised aren't the same as the risks you get when you take medical advice from an Alex Jones or a Kent Hovind, but they're still there. You saying this is like saying that because Europeans have higher rates of alcohol consumptions than North Africans but have a longer life expectency, drinking must raise your life expectancy.
Claiming that you shouldn't cut limbs from healthy babies adds to the stigma of amputees!Plus, when you add this insane stigma to the procedure, you make people feel like freaks when they actually do need it by the time an issue comes up when they're an adult even though the stigma is completely unwarranted.
This is really autistic and you've cited absolutely nothing in this part of your post to boot. What the hell are you going on about here?
Again, I've never considered a hood reduction or removal to count as FGM, and neither should anybody else. And "only hear about the worst cases" is not a one off detail when said "worst cases" number in the tens of millions when talking about the retrograde nativists of Somalia rather than the significantly more enlightened and progressive people of Malay-Indonesia.I just told you about one: The AAP advocated not even the removal of the hood, only a symbolic circumcision. This was shot down due to popular opinion being against it.
In South East Asia, they indeed only remove (part of) the clitoral hood (http://theislamicmonthly.com/a-tiny-cut-female-circumcision-in-south-east-asia/).
As I said, you only hear about the worst cases of FGM, because other cultures are scary! And wrong!
Except this isn't true at all. There have been thousands of women who have had their clitoral hood reduced or removed in the US alone, and hundreds have been monitored and surveyed for their response to the procedure. Like male foreskin removal, it's low risk, low in complications, has quite a few benefits, and it can even be performed on infants with a local anesthetic rather than on adults under a general anesthetic.Food for thought: What are the benifits of FGM?
Answer: We don't know, since it would be unethical to perform research on this.
Which leaves us with the question: Why do we know the benefits of MGM?
Answer: Because we decided that because we do it, it's fine to perform the experiments.
I'm a proponent for genital integrity for all.
The Van Howe study you cited has been quite thoroughly debunked. It's far from valuable to bring up.7% of the circumcised children suffered from meatal stenosis in this study. I could, if I'd hoped to convince you, look up the rates of complication for other common side effects of circumcision?
What's the incidence rate of penile cancer? less than 1 case per 100,000?
I have had chunks of my toenails removed. They don't serve any real purpose either other than to get infected. Though the risks of having toenails are indeed much lower than the risks of having foreskin or an appendix, when complications do come up, they fucking suck.Let's remove toenails too! Nobody is using those anyway!
...you seriously argue the foreskin has no function? What about, I don't know, natural lubricant, lots of nerves you're missing and so on?
And why, say, do most mammals have some kind of sheath for their penis?
Because local anesthesia is significantly safer than general anesthesia.I'm also wondering why you're comparing babies with local anesthesia and adults with general anesthesia.
It is so. Lots of guys in Europe have dicks that look like this:You misunderstood. I'll repeat, if as the article claimed 50% of intact guys will encounter issues with their foreskin in America, why in Europe this isn't so?
I'm not saying that it doesn't. I'm saying you have to look at the bigger picture. Europe has significantly better infrastructure and medical facilities than North Africa, so you also have to consider how much that effects things like HIV rates.If you're saying that results from one continent cannot be extrapolated to another, congrats, you just disproved most articles that claim circumcision prevents HIV.
This is an incredibly spergy sentence that has nothing to do with any of this argument. Unless you want to argue that the foreskin is a fucking limb. What's next? Earlobe integrity? Appendix pride?Claiming that you shouldn't cut limbs from healthy babies adds to the stigma of amputees!
Ah, Doctors Opposing Circumcision. An organization packing so much intellectual power they have all of ONE doctor in their ranks. A doctor who is neither accredited in pediatrics nor male urology, but gynecology.Well, if you'd like a link: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/info-forcedretraction.html
But I'd say it's clear that if Europe has much lower circumcision rates and yet less infections in their intact population, something you Americans are doing is very very wrong.
What surprised me is that he knows what European dicks look like, even better than a real European.
Wikipedia's phimosis article.
If you're ever looking for a picture of the most horrible thing you can think of, be it a plague victim, a frostbitten foot, or a victim of Holdomor, (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T CLICK ON THIS SHIT AT WORK) I'm almost positive you can find it on Wikimedia.
Plus, the human memory is just good in general at remembering the vile, the disquieting, the illegal, the transgressive, and the scatological. There's a reason Robert Fripp picked "California Guitarists Drop Acid Every Gig" as the mnemonic for his New Standard Tuning.
You asked for it, and it's your thread anyway.I'm not sure we needed to know this information. It has nothing to do with foreskins or circumcision.
I don't think it should be mandatory. Just encouraged and not stigmatized, unless the complications go from being a nuisance to a problem like the patient having constant infection. Ultimately, it's the urologist's call. But since it's currently not mandatory in any country to my knowledge, this is a non-issue.What do you think about mandatory circumcision?
You asked for it, and it's your thread anyway.
When I don't cite enough sources when debating this topic, I get told my points aren't well cited enough. When I do cite enough sources, people tell me I have too healthy an interest in dicks.
Now maybe it's just me, but maybe the problem goes deeper? Maybe too many people out there are just unwilling to discuss this topic in anything resembling a non-reactionary or non-spergy manner, and we should all just learn to actually look at the arguments from a merit and scientific based perspective rather than reaching out for the moral panic appeal?