Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
then why is female mutiliation considered a huge deal then? are you a man hater or something? if you're a man do you hate other men is that your deal?
Wyndsong just posted a link tagged with the header, 'DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE CIRCUMCISION'. You may just find your answer to that first question there. As for the others, that's an awful lot to assume about a person, just because they approve of circumcision...
No link to show where you got the data from? Nor any information to show the rates of HIV of the various countries compared to circumsion? Ok, well here's mine.
Well, according the WHO (World Health Organization) it makes a huge difference.
Basically what the study found was that the areas in Africa with high HIV had low circumcision, and vice versa. Also they studied Asian countries where the circumcision rate was much higher and even with men doing riskier sexual practices, they still had MUCH lower rate of HIV and other STI's than their non-circumcised counterparts.
I'd say, even if there was a teeny tiny, less than 1% chance of my son getting HIV, I'd do whatever it took (outside of chopping it completely off or locking him in a closet for 100 years) to keep my son from getting it. But that's just me. Circumcision seems like a MUCH better "lesser of two evils" when you compare it to HIV.
I got my stats from Avert.org. And I have zero worries about my son traveling to Africa/Africa with his uncircumcised penis and possibly being infected with HIV. Seriously, do you know how ridiculous this sounds? While there *may* be a 1% chance that he'll get HIV because he's uncircumcised, I'd rather focus on the other 99% and teach him about safe sex. Or is circumcision the new "birds and the bees" talk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71
I know you LOVE this analogy, but there is ABSOLUTELY no comparison of the two types of "circumcision". Try reading about what female circumcision really is.
See how you're comparing apples to.... I'd say oranges but that somehow doesn't quite apply... apples to watermelons.... maybe kiwi fruit to watermelons... yea that's the difference!
Actually, there is a comparison...it just doesn't suit you to make the connection. And I'm not so much focused on female circumcision, but what about removing the labia on infant girls? Labia does the same thing that foreskin does: hold smegma, can harbor odor, can get saggy/unsightly.
In some cases, labiaplasty is performed on women who have a problem with their labia including: too large, asymmetric, misshapen and/or irregular. Should we start performing mandatory labiaplasty on infant girls to eliminate these potential health problems later in life and/or to eliminate smegma or the possibility of odor or uncleanliness? I would wager that this would benefit women more because we menstruate every month, so the need to be clean is even higher with us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71
You highlighted the wrong part of the sentence... the important part (bold & in red).
I didn't and it's a little sad that you don't see this. Even if I choose to focus on the part you want to emphasize, it says *potential* medical benefits. I'm sorry, but potential is not a good enough reason/proof to circumcise my son without his permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71
That's great!!! Good for you!! Now that I've allowed you to parent your children, could you please let the rest of us parent our own?? Thanks ever so much, love.
You haven't allowed me to parent my children. I allowed my children to make an important health decision for themselves. Now, that's respect and good parenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71
LOL! Wow, that was a giant leap in this thread. I know we discussed the "parental choice" aspect of a hypothetical mother giving her child a tatoo, but this is kinda a streatch! I'll leave it at that, since it's WAY off topic.
When I brought up tattoos, you said that you would allow your son to get one, after a certain time of "reflection". You also said that you would do this because there are no risks involved in getting a tattoo. Just letting you know that you are wrong and there are health risks in getting a tattoo. But I guess disproving your inaccurate statement is not "a stretch" and "off-topic". Gotcha.
In some cases, labiaplasty is performed on women who have a problem with their labia including: too large, asymmetric, misshapen and/or irregular. Should we start performing mandatory labiaplasty on infant girls to eliminate these potential health problems later in life and/or to eliminate smegma or the possibility of odor or uncleanliness? I would wager that this would benefit women more because we menstruate every month, so the need to be clean is even higher with us.
I had to look up labiaplasty because I've never heard of it before. Came across this plastic surgeon's site and am thinking maybe routine infant labiaplasty in the future isn't so far-fetched. If there's money in something, however needless the procedure, there will be doctors encouraging parents to get it done as a preventative measure for disease and for hygienic purposes, just like with circumcision. I wonder if parents who favor circumcision will favor this procedure as well.
From the labiaplasty site (if going to the link, be advised there are what some may consider racy photos on the page):
Quote:
Genital mutilation does happen in some countries. Young girls have had the clitoris removed in some cultures, for example. But think of how standard a circumcision has long been for males. It has typically been done shortly after birth for reasons of future hygiene. A labiaplasty is done much later in life, which is inevitable at present, since it has only recently been developed as a plastic surgery procedure. Perhaps in future decades it will be an accepted procedure for female infants who clearly have over-large labia which will cause future embarrassment and discomfort.
Funny how the Lefties in here say that parents shouldn't be allowed to make this decision are perfectly ok with parents giving their kids a sex change operation.
With a woman, the sensation is not in the skin covering and I'm still convinced that guys that are cut are just as happy as guys that are not.
Then why the hoopla with female circumcision? As far as convincing goes, it can't be done simply based on the fact that those who never experienced/recall having one, can't compare. Those who are uncircumcised, however, might be your best bet to learn from... would they be open to getting rid of it and maintain what it brings to their body?
Quote:
I believe that from a religion standpoint, people that practice a faith that requires circumcision, are not feeling as if they sacrificed much.
Technically true. For them, faith trumps everything. The same can be said of the deformative procedures that many tribes (in Africa) use out of cultures and beliefs, sometimes "to enhance beauty". Although, I suspect that the practice of circumcision has nothing to do with enhancing beauty (the "cosmetic surgery") but to prevent kids from "enjoying themselves" and hence "sinning".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
There is a very good reason why circumcision has been done for thousands of years and it has nothing to do with religion.
Circumcision is a religious/cultural procedure. It may have been practiced for thousand years or more, but that doesn’t make it any different than that. Most old traditions follow those lines. In the USA, circumcision wasn’t popular until after WWI, and it reached its peak in the 1960s. It has been on a decline since (but still trailing the rest of the developed world). Clearly, fewer parents are willing to subject their child(ren) through the procedure that is medically unnecessary and bears risk of its own.
Having said that, foreskin isn’t just a non-functioning, senseless piece of skin. It serves pretty much the same purpose that eye-lid does for the eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD
Funny how the Lefties in here say that parents shouldn't be allowed to make this decision are perfectly ok with parents giving their kids a sex change operation.
I don't think parents should be engaging in sex change activities on their own, and certainly not without the child's consent. The question is, why would righties like you, be allowed to alter a child's sex on their own terms?
Funny how the Lefties in here say that parents shouldn't be allowed to make this decision are perfectly ok with parents giving their kids a sex change operation.
+1 - of course left wingers take hypocrisy to the fathest of extremes!
+1 - of course left wingers take hypocrisy to the fathest of extremes!
Well, the left wingers are clearly nothing like the right wingers... they would prevent a right winger from exercising his/her parental right to do ANYTHING to their child without consent. Whereas, a right winger believes in doing ANYTHING to the child. Right?
The Pro-Non Circ people sure are an almost "militant" group. It's mostly woman or non circ men who just don't get that 99% of us Circumcised men are happy and wouldn't want the foreskin back if we could.
So we're settled then? Parents will retain the right to circumcise their sons if they deem it appropriate?
Excellent, glad we got that settled.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
