Anunnaki

<a href="http://www.intact.ca/vidintro.htm" target="_blank">Here</a> is a link to some Real Player videos of this barbaric procedure.

Anyone who defends this is a stupid fucking prick! (no pun intended)

&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;edited to fix link&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Corwin

Ah, another link I can't follow at work. (Like most people I suspect...)

I wonder if this has anything to do with the study that looked at the cries made by babies during circumcision and found a disturbing correlation between them and the cries of babies born with something seriously wrong with them... (such as severe brain damage...) The only difference was that the circumcised babies (eventually) returned to normal... at least on the surface.

I know I know.... I got a LOT of homework to do tonight....

GunnerJ

Well, it appears I'm outnumbered here. I suspect that after being labeled a "stupid fucking prick" I won't get any further. One comment:

Yes, ignorant, as in:

Corwin

That's your only problem?

Sorry.... the distinction between 'removing the clitoral hood' and 'labial circumcision' is meaningless. The clitoral hood is part of the labia majora. Guess what? It's the same tissue that forms into the foreskin on a male and serves more or less the same function. Removing the clitoral hood IS labial circumcision.

Game over.

GunnerJ

Stop bullshitting. When people think of female circumcision, they usually think of the kind that removes the entire clitoris, not just the hood. Either you didn't know the difference, and were ignorant, or you knew the difference and were dihonestly associating the kind that removes the labial hood to male circumcision in order to hit home a point under false pretenses. And in any case, the simillarities are only cosmetic.

Corwin

Ah, except that labial circumcision exposes the clitoris in exactly the same way that male circumcision exposes the glans. Which lessens sexual response in either gender. Which was, if you read the original justifications from the 19th century... more or less the point.

GunnerJ

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.

Corwin

So dead nerve endings actually INCREASE sensation in the skin and deeper tissues? Wow... you've opened up an entirely new area of neurology....

All of these things are true. Add to this that the procedure, (an ENTIRELY ELECTIVE medical procedure by any definition) is done completely without consent by the person that's being hacked on, and you just add insult to injury.

If I had it to do over again I wouldn't have it done. Thing is I never got that choice now, did I?

crackrabbit

Well, then there's the whole comment about "when Muslims do it." It's not strictly a Muslim practice - in fact, it's mostly still practiced in Africa (where, by the way, it originated), including mostly Christian areas like Ethiopia and Kenya.

<strong> Removing the hood of the clitoris is like removing the inner and outer labia in the same way that removing the foreskin is like cutting off the penis and scrotum.

I'm not saying male circumcision is not mutilation, and I'm not saying it doesn't affect sensation. But likening it to a procedure that renders women physically incapable of having sex without pain and bleeding, and which removes their entire external genitalia, is a fallacy.

Edited for clarity.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Melly ]</p>

Corwin

Point conceded. It is largely still a muslim practice tho. Other groups do still do it, but the numbers lean toward african muslims.

Not entirely true. Both remove the protective tissues that normally cover the main organ of sexual response. In both cases this leads to a loss of feeling in the organ. Removing all labial tissues and the clitoris would be the same as complete castration. (Even more barbaric.)

Note that I'm not saying female circumcision is anything great... in fact I find it as barbaric and repulsive as male circumcision.... both antiquated customs perpetuated by those (mostly religious) types who are afraid of human sexuality. The major difference between the two is that in female circumcision the girl usually isn't an actual infant. (Frequently it happens from the onset of menses on up until they're 16-18.) Honestly, I don't know whether this makes it better or worse. Better because at least she has a frame of reference for the whole thing... (unlike a baby boy...) and worse because... she sees it coming. (Also unlike a baby boy...)