Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

UK; 66,000 Women and Girls


libertyworld

Recommended Posts

Being circumcised as a man decreases sensation and leaves the most sensitive skin exposed to friction with udnergarments,

Read what you just said. Male circumcision decreases sensation yet leave the most sensative skin exposed. Thats a double negative. I've always read and heard that male circumcision enhances the experience. So the male to female circumcision comparison is not valid argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Neognosis

    9

  • Bill Hill

    8

  • libertyworld

    4

  • 1.618

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Any unnecessary surgery should be banned from being performed on those who haven't reached the age where they can make their own informed decisions, this goes for cosmetic as well as the barbaric cutting off of genitalia discussed here.

Does that include Jewish male circumcision?

While I wish I wasn't circumcised, and I won't circumcise a son if I have one, I still respect the jewish custom and think they have a right to do so with their sons. Is it your position that you want to criminalize jewish male circumcision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Male circumcision decreases sensation yet leave the most sensative skin exposed. Thats a double negative.

Finish reading what I wrote:

further reducing sensation.

Without the protection of the foreskin, the sensitive parts of the penis rub against the undergarments, decreasing sensation over time.

I've always read and heard that male circumcision enhances the experience. So the male to female circumcision comparison is not valid argument.

I've heard the exact opposite. The foreskin can still be pulled back to expose the sensitive parts durring sex, it contains nerve endings itself, and friction between the foreskin and the penis itself is pleasurable.

I've already said that the comparision is not valid in terms of "cruelty." But some people think that male circumcision is barbaric too, and it is a cultural phenomena as well. So while they are not exactly the same, the comparison is valid because they are both mutilations that some people find objectionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you feel that way when a westerner is arrested for not wearing the proper head covering? Or when a missionary is arrested for preaching christianity? Or when a westerner is arrested for exposing her ankle, or any of the other ridiculous things westerners get in trouble for over there?

Of course. It's their country and their laws.

Despite its backwardness in both mind and laws, gotta respect them if you're on their land.

Hell, if you go across the chanel to France, you ought to know the basics of the language. Just as you'd expect French coming to England should be able to speak basic English.

The people doing this are in my country, doing barbaric religious crap - AKA, female multilation. Where women can die. Jewish male circumcision is fine, it doesn't kill or harm the person, and then there is the tale of it being a lower risk of urinal infection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. It's their country and their laws. Despite its backwardness in both mind and laws, gotta respect them if you're on their land.

I agree and I like your consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<_< gosh i hope not

That would be voodoo... in the UK?

mmmh...

Hundreds of African boys have disappeared from London schools, police investigating the murder of a boy whose torso was left in the Thames have said.

Scotland Yard asked London education authorities how many black boys aged four to seven had vanished from school.

Between July and September 2001, 300 had disappeared, and police fear thousands may go missing annually.

bbc

I guess it won't be long before someone makes a film about it.

Oh...

linked-image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several distinct practices of FGC that range in severity, depending on how much genital tissue is cut away. Four major types have been categorized by the WHO[9] (see Diagram 1), although there is some debate as to whether all common forms of FGC fit into these four categories, as well as issues with the reliability of reported data.[10]

Diagram 1:This image shows the different types of FGC and how they differ to the normal female anatomy.

[edit]

Type I

The WHO defines Type I female genital mutilation as the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood, termed "hoodectomy" (or "clitorodotomy"), with or without excision of the clitoris, see Diagram 1B. The clitoral hood is homologous to the foreskin of the penis which is removed during circumcision.

Although labeled Sunna by Islamic advocates of the practice, most Muslim clergy oppose all forms of female genital cutting as it is viewed as a social custom, rather than a religious practice. According to Dr. Sami A. Aldeeb Abu-Salieh at the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law:

Islamic juridical logic cannot acknowledge the distinction between female and male circumcision, both being the mutilation of healthy organs which is damaging to the physical integrity of the child, whatever the underlying religious motivations. Furthermore, both practices violate the Koran: "Our Lord, You did not create all this in vain" (3:191), and "[He] perfected everything He created" (32:7).

– [11]

[edit]

Type II: Excision

Excision refers to clitoridectomy (removal of the prepuce and the clitoris) plus the partial or total removal of the labia minora, the inner lips of the vulva, see Diagram 1C. Type II circumcision is a more extensive form of FGC compared to Type I and due to the sewing together of the leftover labia minora epidermis, which contains sweat glands, a buildup of sweat and urine in the closed off space beneath this closure can lead to local or urinary infection, septicemia, hemorrhaging and cyst formation.[12] This type of FGC is also called khafd, meaning reduction in Arabic.

[edit]

Type III: Infibulation

Type III is the most severe form of FGC and is called infibulation or pharaonic circumcision (referring to the Pharaohs who were thought to practice this form). It accounts for 15% of all FGM procedures. [13] Infibulation involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora. The labia majora are then held together using thorns or stitching. In some cases the girl's legs have been tied together for two to six weeks, to prevent her from moving and to allow the healing of the two sides of the vulva. Nothing remains but the walls of flesh from the pubis down to the anus, with the exception of an opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through, see Diagram 1D. Generally, a practitioner deemed to have the necessary skill carries out this procedure, and a local anesthetic is used. However, when carried out "in the bush," infibulation is often performed by an elderly matron or midwife of the village, with no anesthesia used.[14]

A reverse infibulation can be performed to allow for sexual intercourse or when undergoing labor, or by female relatives, whose responsibility it is to inspect the wound every few weeks and open it some more if necessary. During childbirth, the enlargement is too small to allow vaginal delivery, and so the infibulation must be opened completely and restored after delivery. Again, the legs are sometimes tied together to allow the wound to heal. When childbirth takes place in a hospital, the surgeons may preserve the infibulation by enlarging the vagina with deep episiotomies. Afterwards, the patient may insist that her vulva be closed again.[14]

This practice increases the occurrence of medical complications due to a lack of modern medicine and surgical practices. Despite claims that infibulation eliminates sexual pleasure, a five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in Sudan found that "sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by the majority of women who have been subjected to this extreme sexual mutilation, in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences."[15]

Most advocates of the practice continue to perform the procedure in adherence to standards of beauty that are very different from those in the west. Many infibulated women will contend that the pleasure their partners receive due to this procedure is a definitive part of a successful marriage and enjoyable sex life.

In some areas of Africa, women see infibulation as a form of female empowerment. A study by Anthropologist Rogaia M. Abusharaf, found that "circumcision is seen as 'the machinery which liberates the female body from its masculine properties'[16] and for the women she interviewed, it is a source of empowerment and strength" [17]

[edit]

Type IV: Other types

There are other forms that are collectively referred to as Type IV and usually do not involve any tissue removal at all, but rather the "cutting" is simulated with a knife as part of a ceremony. This includes a diverse range of practices, including pricking the clitoris with needles, burning or scarring the genitals as well as ripping or tearing of the vagina or introducing herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding and a narrowed vaginal opening (ref). Type IV is found primarily among isolated ethnic groups as well as in combination with other types

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they cut off their clitorises, that's female circumcision, right?

I'm torn over this. I mean, it's barbaric, but do people have a right to be barbaric in their own cultures? If it's one's culture, how far do we go in allowing one to practice that culture? Should we prevent jews from doing male circumcisions too? Are they even on the same level?

Does that include Jewish male circumcision?

While I wish I wasn't circumcised, and I won't circumcise a son if I have one, I still respect the jewish custom and think they have a right to do so with their sons. Is it your position that you want to criminalize jewish male circumcision?

No... I think I see where you are coming from Neognosis, but the orange, badly-drawn paw goes down right here .

There can be NO comparison between male circumcision, and female genital excision. The two proceedures are entirely different (err.. well... yes.. they WOULD be.. but) and have completely different consequences.

Cat will NOT accept dithering "cultural equivelance" arguments here. This practice is cruel and sick. It IS banned across the UK, and for good reasons. If a culture demands "female genital excision" (Cat is NOT going to call it "female circumcision - that is a term INVENTED by multiculturalists to avoid mass outrage), then that culture must be "proscribed", in the sense of the UK Terrorism Act (2000). (above and beyond the mere banning of the implemention of this practice).

I'm too angry to write any more.

I may be back.

Meow Purr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that include Jewish male circumcision?

While I wish I wasn't circumcised, and I won't circumcise a son if I have one, I still respect the jewish custom and think they have a right to do so with their sons. Is it your position that you want to criminalize jewish male circumcision?

Yes of course, I alluded to that in my next sentence. A baby boy should be allowed to stay as he was born until he is old enough to decide whether he wants to confirm his religious convenent(possibly at his barmitspha age 12/13 when he is considered a man but I still consider this too young). Sand up the foreskin isn't a problem unless you are wandering the desert in a dress without underpants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canibalism? There are cultures that eat their own dead. And cultures that leave them in a little stone room without a ceiling for the vultures to pick clean. (zoroastrians). I'm not aware of any cultures that are living in the US and GB right now that eat their own dead, though, so it's not an issue.

Bad example, these people are already dead, it's not a barbaric practice to dispose of your dead in this way. To cut the genitals of a woman with a piece of glass just to prevent her from having sex before marriage is barbaric and opressive.

I agree with whoever it was that said people should decide if they want these procedures done at an age where they can make an informed decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do they do with it after its cut off :huh: they dont eat it do they <_< gosh i hope not

That explains the nobble bits on twiglets. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you also agains jewish circumcision?

Depends on the circumstances..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

finally, you posted substantial 'news' rather than nonsensical left-bashing.

For people that defend in some way the female genitalia circumcision, re-read the stuff that libertyworld is highlighting. I think this practice is nothing more than barbaric and shouldn't even be compared to penis circumcision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

finally, you posted substantial 'news' rather than nonsensical left-bashing.

For people that defend in some way the female genitalia circumcision, re-read the stuff that libertyworld is highlighting. I think this practice is nothing more than barbaric and shouldn't even be compared to penis circumcision.

Interesting how some here react to other's expressing a different opinion.

I've always mixed news and opinion, as have many others here, and the "World Events & Current Affairs" room of this forum has hosted many a debate apart from "substantial news".

You don't have an aversion to other's opinions or differing views do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read what you just said. Male circumcision decreases sensation yet leave the most sensative skin exposed. Thats a double negative. I've always read and heard that male circumcision enhances the experience. So the male to female circumcision comparison is not valid argument.

There's indeed a huge difference between removal of the clitoris and removal of foreskin. I've always thought of the pleasure attainable by a clitoris as a natural balance against the undoubted pain of childbirth. I've heard that only facial neuralgia is worse. Females of any species that go through childbirth deserve a mechanism for shudderingly incredible pleasure at the very least, especially the Kiwi bird which I think is now extinct. Their eggs are 2/3rds the size of their body. Aaaaggghhh! I read somewhere that the clitoral structure extends as far within a woman's body as the penis extends beyond a man's. Amazing. Anyone who seeks to reduce a woman's capacity for pleasure is psychologically scared, I'm sure you'll agree. 'Did the Earth move for you'? I'm hoping that question was first posed by a satisfied woman and not some guy on the wrong day in Pompeii.

But it's surely not a double negative to suggest that exposing sensitivity by removing foreskin reduces pleasure, in the act of making whoopee that is, simply because there are many more factors than circumcision or lack thereof that dictate a man's experience, duration and pleasure. I mean, how many times do men apparently think about IT per day?

BTW, there is an arcane Jewish sect that requires circumcision by mouth, believe it or not. There's been a few suspicious cases of infant herpes in New York, although the numbers involved were almost as small as the quantities removed. The principle is still disgusting, to my way of thinking, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, there is an arcane Jewish sect that requires circumcision by mouth, believe it or not.

Really? Any more info on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMFG 1.618. Did you read what explorer wrote. That's just total BS.

Have you read anything about it before Explorer? I bet thats some pretty heavy stuff yeah?

I tell ya's something, what I wouldnt do to circumcis anyone I came across doing such a thing like female circumcision.

I'd probably start at their throat.

This sort of stuff makes me slightly cranky. :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMFG 1.618. Did you read what explorer wrote. That's just total BS.

Have you read anything about it before Explorer? I bet thats some pretty heavy stuff yeah?

I tell ya's something, what I wouldnt do to circumcis anyone I came across doing such a thing like female circumcision.

I'd probably start at their throat.

This sort of stuff makes me slightly cranky. :devil:

Yeah, i read it crimson, just curious about the oral circumcision reference. Imagine how cranky you would be if it had been done to you.

Don't some faiths believe that in order to ascend to heaven after death that the body must be whole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, if true, that's pretty sick... still, waiting for explorer's verification.

He made the claim...I can't be bothered to look it up. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, i read it crimson, just curious about the oral circumcision reference. Imagine how cranky you would be if it had been done to you.

Don't some faiths believe that in order to ascend to heaven after death that the body must be whole?

I bet it would look a mess as well.

Ironically I think the jews have to bury all the body, thats why those religious blokes go in after a bus bomb to pick up all the little pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the protection of the foreskin, the sensitive parts of the penis rub against the undergarments, decreasing sensation over time.

I've heard the exact opposite. The foreskin can still be pulled back to expose the sensitive parts durring sex, it contains nerve endings itself, and friction between the foreskin and the penis itself is pleasurable.

I looked it up in wiki and alas, we're both wrong. There is no conclusive evidence to date of enhancement or desensitization. I would provide a link but the page shows pics of mr.happy in the relaxed and saluting states which would be deemed inappropriate for this forum.

Go to Wiki and search circumcision.

There's indeed a huge difference between removal of the clitoris and removal of foreskin. I've always thought of the pleasure attainable by a clitoris as a natural balance against the undoubted pain of childbirth. I've heard that only facial neuralgia is worse. Females of any species that go through childbirth deserve a mechanism for shudderingly incredible pleasure at the very least, especially the Kiwi bird which I think is now extinct. Their eggs are 2/3rds the size of their body. Aaaaggghhh! I read somewhere that the clitoral structure extends as far within a woman's body as the penis extends beyond a man's. Amazing. Anyone who seeks to reduce a woman's capacity for pleasure is psychologically scared, I'm sure you'll agree. 'Did the Earth move for you'? I'm hoping that question was first posed by a satisfied woman and not some guy on the wrong day in Pompeii.

But it's surely not a double negative to suggest that exposing sensitivity by removing foreskin reduces pleasure, in the act of making whoopee that is, simply because there are many more factors than circumcision or lack thereof that dictate a man's experience, duration and pleasure. I mean, how many times do men apparently think about IT per day?

BTW, there is an arcane Jewish sect that requires circumcision by mouth, believe it or not. There's been a few suspicious cases of infant herpes in New York, although the numbers involved were almost as small as the quantities removed. The principle is still disgusting, to my way of thinking, that is.

Yeah, from what I've read so far, there seems to be a big difference between male and female circumcision.

The double negative statement was entirely my error. Lack of proper rest causes my brain to tell my fingers to type hair-brained statements. I should have said "seems to be a contradiction ". Good post though, very informative. Thanks !

Edited by Stardrive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I may be experiencing less pleasure because of some ridiculous Jewish tradition.........

Well that is just infuriating. :angry2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was inaccurate in using the expression "circumcision by mouth", as if the slack gets bitten off, but this is what I was talking about:

A study entitled “Neonatal Genital Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infection After Jewish Ritual Circumcision: Modern Medicine and Religious Tradition,” published by Gesundheit et al. (2004) shows the crossroads at which medicine and religion cross. The authors found that eight neonates had genital herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) after undergoing a Jewish ritual circumcision. The procedure can only be performed by an experienced and qualified circumciser, or mohel, who after removing the prepuce and slitting the inner lining of the foreskin, sucks the blood from the wound. The ritual is typically performed on male infants eight days old and in the Jewish religion the ritual is a sign of the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people (Gesundheit et al. 2004).

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.