I think that removing the foreskin is a lot less invasive and involves a lot less fleshy tissue and blood vessels. It also generally involves almost no stitchwork and little healing time. Not at all the case with what is done to females. If you look at anatomy and development, then removing the labia and vulvar region of a female is about the same as castration in a male. And a woman or child who is subjected to female "circumcision"- which actually is a misnomer, as the two procedures are completely different processes- is at risk of severe infection and severe blood loss. The reasons behind the two different procedures is QUITE different as well, as circumcision on a male is often done for religious or hygienic reasons. Female circumcision might be performed in the name of religion, but the underlying purpose is to reduce a woman's capacity to enjoy sexual pleasure, which is supposedly to make her more likely to practice fidelity to her husband. I haven't yet heard that male circumcision serves any such purpose or reduces male pleasure or ability to reach climax. I might mention as well, that female "circumcisions" vary in their severity and invasiveness. Some forms only remove the vulva and labia minora, while the more extremes surgeries involve the removal of all vaginal structures, as well as sewing up the mouth of a woman's vagina, so that only a tiny hole is left for the purposes of menstruation. Again, QUITE different from male circumcision. <br />
From a medical perspective, there's this from Medline concerning male circumcision: <br />
"Possible benefits include a lower risk of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. The risks include pain and a low risk of bleeding or infection.<br />
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. They recommend that parents make this decision in consultation with their pediatrician. Parents need to decide what is best for their sons, ba<x>sed on their religious, cultural and personal preferences."
This is the best explanation ever. Thank you.
Any parent who circumcises their son, who is too young to make the decision for himself, should be prosecuted.
And biased opinions from people like this, who don't help the situation at all, should be murdered. Eh? :)
OK. Then I presume that you would have no objection to somebody cutting your body against your will. And since I didn't contend the offender should be "murdered", I have no duty to defend myself against your misquoting of my words.
Who are you replying to? I argued against circumcision. You and I are on the same side.
Because in America there are a lot of doctors making a lot of money performing male circumcisions.<br />
There are a wide range of practices lumped together under the heading of female circumcision. One such practice is the removal of the clitoral hood (prepuce). This is entirely analogous to the removal of the male prepuce (foreskin).<br />
The one thing that all forms of female cutting having in common is that they are strictly illegal when performed on minors. This includes even a simple ritual pinprick to draw a single drop of blood.<br />
There is no logical or defensible reason why genital alteration surgery ("circumcision") performed on boys should not be banned by law as well.
Because of tradition. It should be considered just as bad.<br />
I always found fascinating that how many cultures invented practices that welcome the newborn to life by placing a sharp knife to the genitals and start slicing parts off. Aren't we humans just wonderful?
you get more infections as a male
If you don't bathe.
sometimes. ive seen horrible infections from clinicians from very clean ones
Mind you and your ignorance, many places in the world still don't have access to clean water, and certainly not to daily baths.
So that excuses the rest of the world but that doesn't excuse the US does it?
Simply not true, there is zero medical evidence for this argument
Not true. Women have more folds and creases and get more UTIs and vaginal infections (think yeast) than men- even if the men are intact.
The usual argument is that the procedure, the age when it is done, the time of healing, and the trauma caused are very different. Of course this is a tough subject and I am personally not for circumcision (Perhaps partial, if for health reasons) but I do understand the difference between the two procedures is quite vast. Both are actually generally considered as mutilation.
cause its in the bible [dont judge me.]
so is female circumcision
Hm i guess I didn't get to that chapter....
Genesis 17:10 ....about males
Yes..And the female?
Idk I never said anything about females.
I live in a society where both male and female circumcision are practice until today but really there's no problem whatsoever when they're in a relationship.i think the way it is done is the problem.we have qualified doctors for that.
There have been compelling arguments why male circumcision is bad and good- there has been no good reason to circumcise a female.
Circumcision is a "cure" in search of a disease, and always has been. It has been reported to cure epilepsy, ************, sexual frigidness, sexual impulsiveness, syphilis, cerebral palsy, and a host of other maladies. It has been claimed to prevent STDs, ************, sexual deviancy, cancer, and another host of maladies. Funny they don't ever stick very long- so they have to keep "finding" new things that it prevents/cures.
Those stars are "self love".
Symbolically it represents various things but even the apostles said it doesn't matter circ or not anymore. It's been adopted and integrated into society. I've met men who prefer it, also for their sons, and men who don't. My son is circd, my nephew isn't. I feel like it should be the father's call. It's rare to be uncircumsized where I live so I think some do it so their kid won't feel awkward in the locker room.
Should it be a mother's call whether her her daughter's clitoral hood is surgically removed? Because that's completely analogous to male circumcision.
Well, Elvid. You live on a planet mostly inhabited by psychopathic retards. Every person has a choice, to serve or not to serve. Some people serve god, the problem with that is we don't know god. This can leave a person up to serve someone elses agenda, and that can be very negative. Some even serve chaos and that would be considered negative by most, I would agree. <br />
But you know the worst? is when one serves themselves. These people, these godly people, atheistic, political types, all they serve is themselves. I serve the truth, it isn't often kind but how could it be in a world built of lies. Know the truth, seek the truth, and the truth will set you free may just be the only honest statement within the bible, I took it to heart when I rejected the bible.
Look up how and why some cultures perform female circumcisions. That may shed some light.<br />
I saw the tools that an African tribe uses and I can tell you it looks like theres a lot of pain involved.
It is considered mutilation but its become common practice so much that its just seen as a "meh" kind of thing. Male circumcision is the partial, or complete removal of the foreskin. While female circumcision has various procedures. One of them includes complete or partial removal of the clitoral hood. One of them includes P or C removal of the lips, and the other one is P or C removal of the clitoris itself.
Removal is not half as difficult as the sewing up. They need to be in bed with their legs tied together for two weeks to ensure the stitches will not come undone, and that very stitch will be painfully broken at the night of marriage. Yikes.
not true have u ever heard about labiaplastry and hoodectomy? they even perform in western countries.
The thing about that is that it only done in medically primitive areas in the world. You are talking about the extremes that only happen to a small majority
Because people aren't educated about FGM and they are culturally biased toward male circumcision if they are in the US. They believe that FGM always includes clitoridectomy, which is of course horrific. What they probably don't realize, is that the last type of FGM includes "ritual nicks" and "pinpricks" in the clitoral hood (prepuce). This is less invasive and less harmful than the removal of foreskin (prepuce) and frenulum on a boy. Yet- even those are illegal.
Because male circumcision does not alter function at ALL. Circumcised males are not sexually disabled. Did you actually need someone to explain this to you?
It is by all logical standards and truly educated people.
Please note: This is NOT a comparison of female and male circumcision!<br />
All forms of female and male genital mutilation should made illegal unless the surgery is done for absolute medical reasons!<br />
I am only talking about non-consenting routine male infant and male child circumcision here.<br />
I am natural with an intact foreskin. So are my 4 sons and 7 grandsons and over 80% of the males in the world.<br />
We all get along just fine (without any surgical intervention of our healthy body parts) just as Mother Nature intended us to be.<br />
Functions of the Foreskin (Prepuce) Part 1 of 2<br />
Functions of the Foreskin (Prepuce) Part 2 of 2<br />