Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 02-11-2002, 07:13 PM

Perhaps <a href="http://www.icgi.org/fgm-mgm_classification.htm" target="_blank">this</a> will help clarify the issues:

Quote:

FGM Classification by
World Health Organization

"Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) constitutes all procedures which involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural or any other non-therapeutic reasons."

Type I: Excision of the prepuce with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris.

Type II: Excision of the prepuce and clitoris together with partial or total excision of the labia minora.

Type III: Excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation).

Type IV (Unclassified): includes pricking, piercing or incision of clitoris and/or labia; stretching of clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of clitoris and surrounding tissues; scraping (angurya cuts) of the vaginal orifice or cutting (gishiri cuts) of the vagina; introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina to cause bleeding or herbs into the vagina with the aim of tightening or narrowing the vagina; any other procedure which falls under the definition of FGM given above.

MGM Classification by
International Coalition for Genital Integrity

"Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) constitutes all procedures which involve partial or total removal of the external male genitalia or other injury to the male genital organs whether for cultural or any other non-therapeutic reasons."

Type I: Excision or injury of part or all of the skin and specialized mucosal tissues of the penis including the prepuce and frenulum (circumcision, dorsal slit without closure).

Type II:Excision or injury to the glans (glandectomy) and/or penis shaft, (penectomy) along with Type I MGM. Any procedure that interferes with reproductive or sexual function in the adult male.

Type III: Excision or destruction of the testes (castration, orchidectomy) with or without Type II MGM.

Type IV (Unclassified): includes pricking, piercing or incision of the prepuce, glans, scrotum or other genital tissue; cutting and suturing of the prepuce over the glans (infibulation); slitting open the urethra along the ventral surface of the penis (subincision); slitting open the foreskin along its dorsal surface (superincision); severing the frenulum; stripping the skin from the shaft of the penis; introducing corrosive or scalding substances onto the genital area; any other procedure which falls under the definition of MGM given above.

Essentially the only type of female genital mutilation that isn't as bad as male circumcision or far worse is removal of the clitoral hood.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

tronvillain · 02-11-2002, 07:23 PM

Rimstalker:

Quote:

Complete bunk. I noticed how you simply said how male circumcision was merely "proposed" in the Victorian era as a method of reducing sex drive... you never stated that it actually does. Which is because it doesn't.

Actually, I believe it was proposed to make masturbation more difficult, not decrease sex drive. In any case, Corwin said that it reduced sexual response rather than sex drive, and this does appear to be the case.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

thebeave · 02-11-2002, 08:28 PM

Remember that commercial in the '70's where they demonstrated the smoothness of the ride in a Lincoln Continental by circumsizing a baby in the back seat? Does anyone know if that baby turned out OK?

Toto · 02-11-2002, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thebeave:
Remember that commercial in the '70's where they demonstrated the smoothness of the ride in a Lincoln Continental by circumsizing a baby in the back seat? Does anyone know if that baby turned out OK?

I think the commercial had a diamond cutter working on a stone. The Saturday Night Live parody had the bris. I bet they didn't show an actual bris, or if they did the baby is as screwed up as the typical child actor.

Corwin · 02-11-2002, 10:33 PM

Allright.

I said I'd research when I got home.

I'm home. Home is where the unmonitored internet access is and the 'boss potentially looking over your shoulder at the computer screen' isn't.

Now.... I didn't follow all of the links on these pages, as I recall some of them may lead to rather graphic images. Such as one advocate's gallery of botched circumcisions. Viewer discretion is strongly advised, as is a strong stomach.

<a href="http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist.html" target="_blank">http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist.html</a>

<a href="http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/circ-why/" target="_blank">http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/circ-why/</a>

<a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/" target="_blank">http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/</a>

<a href="http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/" target="_blank">http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/</a>

<a href="http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris.html" target="_blank">http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris.html</a>

<a href="http://my.webmd.com/content/article/3609.107" target="_blank">http://my.webmd.com/content/article/3609.107</a>

Now.... could someone please explain the BENEFIT here?

tronvillain · 02-11-2002, 10:41 PM

For quite a few posts now Corwin, the argument has been about your comparison of male circumcision to female genital mutilation rather than its benefits. However, I agree with you that there does not appear to be any significant benefit.

Anunnaki · 02-11-2002, 10:41 PM

Have you checked out the link with the videos I gave you? This is definately something you won`t want to watch at work!

While I watched (and listened) to the procedure I could not even imagine how it was something I was put through. It`s so disturbing that I will never watch it again.

tronvillain · 02-11-2002, 10:55 PM

I take issue with <a href="http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist.html" target="_blank">this</a> page though:

Quote:

*1. The frenar band of soft ridges--the single most pleasure producing zone on the male body. Loss of this densely innervated and reactive belt of tissue reduces the sensitivity of the remaining penis to about that of ordinary skin.

Anyone who thinks the glans isn't the single most pleasure producing zone on the male body is seriously deluded. While some of the rest of the list looks accurate, this statement makes him a lot less credible.

2tadpoles · 02-12-2002, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
I take issue with <a href="http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist.html" target="_blank">this</a> page though:

Anyone who thinks the glans isn't the single most pleasure producing zone on the male body is seriously deluded. While some of the rest of the list looks accurate, this statement makes him a lot less credible.

If your foreskin was amputated at birth, you will never know how much more pleasurable things could have been. For someone without a foreskin, the glans probably IS the most sensitive part of the body. For someone with a foreskin, it's probably not.

2tadpoles · 02-12-2002, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rimstalker:
An unbelievably bad analogy. I'm embarassed for you. Breaking the arm not only has no positive side effects, but definate negative ones. While the positive effects of circumcision may be in dispute, there is some backing for it; would anyone suggest there are any benefits to breaking an infant's arm? Please try harder next time.

There are definite negative side effects to circumcision. Check out the sites that Corwin sent. Any positive effects are potential, at best.

I was not comparing the breaking of an arm to circumcision in regards to necessity. I was comparing them in regards to pain, and the justification that the child won't remember it so it's okay to cause them pain (for whatever reason). Please try not to take things so literally next time.

Quote:

Gory details make good rhetorical points, but carry weight in a rational argument.

Attention to detail in typing carries good weight in an argument, too. I'm assuming you meant to say that gory details carry NO weight in a rational argument? People seem to think that circumcision is about as simple as removing a mole, and that just isn't so. Many people who think about circumcising their sons change their minds after watching the procedure. People need to make an EDUCATED decision on the matter, and often that isn't happening.

QUOTE]A pretty big claim... like to substantiate it? And show why those who disagree are wrong? [/QUOTE]

Nope. Do your own homework. I did mine before my boys were born.

Quote:

You have yet to show that circumcision is such a great harm that it outweighs this good.

Circumcision is the painful removal of healthy tissue. It exposes a normally sheathed mucous membrane to air, excrement, and friction, which causes the tissue to keratinize. The foreskin of an adult male is roughly the size of a 3X5 index card, and contains over 20,000 nerve receptors. RIC often leads to conditions such as buried penis and chordee (where the penis leans to one side). Men who have had a very vigorous circumcision, where too much skin was taken, can have painful erections as adults. Inflicting this upon all newborn males in order to prevent possible illness in very few is ridiculous. More than 80% of the world's male population is intact. If RIC had so many benefits, more countries would be doing it.

Quote:

Dual arguments from authority and popularity. Is this how you substantiate a claim?

Nope. It's just the truth, is all. If RIC had proven medical benefit, you'd think that at least ONE medical organization would back it. None do.... not even the AAP.

Quote:

Signifigance? My circumcised cock has plenty of fine orgasms without slime and a few extra nerves, thank you.

Why thank you for the information. @@ Now how about we all chip in and buy Rimstalker some class, eh?

Quote:

You could say the same about breastfeeding. How do we know whether the baby wants to suckle at his mom's teet or use a bottle? There's very little signifigant difference. Whose mouth is it anyway?

Very bad comparison. Since my six-year old has a mouth, I should let him eat whatever he chooses? He would eat twinkies and chocolate milk all day, but that's okay, eh?

Breastmilk is a superior food to formula. The act of breastfeeding works certain jaw muscles and strengthens them, which does not happen with bottle-feeding. Each woman's breastmilk is individually tailored to her child's nutritional needs. Breastfed children have been shown to have higher IQ's and less rates of allergies and neruological problems. Yada, yada, yada. I hope you do some research on both issues before (and if) you ever decide to have children. There are major proven benefits to breastfeeding, and no proven benefits to circumcision. It is a largely cosmetic surgery, performed on an individual who has no say in the matter.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Frogsmoocher ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-11-2002, 08:28 PM	#33
thebeave Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Silicon Valley, CA Posts: 4,183	Remember that commercial in the '70's where they demonstrated the smoothness of the ride in a Lincoln Continental by circumsizing a baby in the back seat? Does anyone know if that baby turned out OK? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

02-11-2002, 10:33 PM	#35
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Allright. I said I'd research when I got home. I'm home. Home is where the unmonitored internet access is and the 'boss potentially looking over your shoulder at the computer screen' isn't. Now.... I didn't follow all of the links on these pages, as I recall some of them may lead to rather graphic images. Such as one advocate's gallery of botched circumcisions. Viewer discretion is strongly advised, as is a strong stomach. <a href="http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist.html" target="_blank">http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist.html</a> <a href="http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/circ-why/" target="_blank">http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/circ-why/</a> <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/" target="_blank">http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/</a> <a href="http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/" target="_blank">http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/</a> <a href="http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris.html" target="_blank">http://www.circumstitions.com/Morris.html</a> <a href="http://my.webmd.com/content/article/3609.107" target="_blank">http://my.webmd.com/content/article/3609.107</a> Now.... could someone please explain the BENEFIT here?

02-11-2002, 10:41 PM	#36
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	For quite a few posts now Corwin, the argument has been about your comparison of male circumcision to female genital mutilation rather than its benefits. However, I agree with you that there does not appear to be any significant benefit.

02-11-2002, 10:41 PM	#37
Anunnaki Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: I`ve left and gone away Posts: 699	Have you checked out the link with the videos I gave you? This is definately something you won`t want to watch at work! While I watched (and listened) to the procedure I could not even imagine how it was something I was put through. It`s so disturbing that I will never watch it again.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.