This title on CNN caught my eye yesterday - Britain Battles Female Circumcision. You’d think they wouldn’t have to battle that, no?
The world is a screwed up place with screwed up people. I guess this is nothing new. 
BUt circumcision is still ok?
No not new, but as I’ve said before and am compelled to say again, why does the practice on girls cause outrage yet is tolerated by supposed civilised people when done to boys? Technically, there aint a scrap of difference, as we’re only talking about chopping off the external genitalia, right?
I saw that BBC clip and it showed a young girl screaming her head off as they held her down and slashed up her bits. Though the anticipation was absent for the little baby boy I saw get the chop, the squealing and tears were no different once they’d begun mutilating him.
HG
False comparison medically and physically.
I am circumsized and my floppy bits have and do work extremely well.
This is female genital mutilation removing parts this sick cult believes allows the female to experience pleasure.
Don’t divert the OT by bringing male circumcision into this…different practice completely.
Okay, so then you can explain the difference? I’m all ears.
HG
Give me some pinking shears and I can demonstrate
It’s the same to me. The female one is more horrific than the other though.
Foreskin and clitoris were put there for a reason. Leave them be. Ooops, infants can’t talk…and children have no voice…
Cutting or stripping sensitive tissue from kids, usually for religious purposes? How fucking grotesque can a culture be? Why not just cut the (facial) lips off baby girls? That’ll keep the boys away from the dirty girls.
No. Go to Mers link or somewhere else and read about it.
It is a truly ghastly process most commonly performed in non-sterile conditions with crude implements by some wacko with no medical expertise on a non-anesthetized victim.
We’re talking body mutilation as a cultural norm for these savages.
There is a very good book about this written by a woman who is now in, I think, New York city, that has recently been published.
I read some excerpts from it a few weeks ago. Very disturbing that these practices continue.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Okay, so then you can explain the difference? I’m all ears.
HG[/quote]I thought you were the medical guy around here ? Female circumcision is analogous to the removal of the penis. Male circumcision (pointless as it is) is the removal of a piece of skin. One is condemned by almost all human rights and medical groups, the other one isn’t.
Don’t take it off topic, we’ve already done that one.
Female circumcision denies pleasure: male circumcision does not.
Female circumcision causes health issues: male circumcision helps avoid the same.
No. Male or female, they are both grotesque and barbaric practices, IMO.
Amen brother!
Didn’t think so.
I suspect you are confused, as most people tend to be, into thinking that the bulk of female circumsicion involves the full removal of the clitoris and external labia, or in more extreme instances, the inner labia also. However, this is extremely rare. More commonly the process is in effect absolutely no different to male circumcision, and indeed most often involve nothing more than the symbolic drawing of a drop of blood, so in effect a less invasive intervention than the male version.
As for carrying it out in a non-clinical setting, you mean like in a loungeroom surrounded by invited guests? I can also tell you from experience that there is no saving graces when performed under clinical conditions. Babies are rarely if ever given anything for the pain, as the danger of killing them through that intervention is deemed too great. And as for sterile environment, it is impossible to keep that wound clean.
There’s not a scrap of difference I’m afraid. Both are equally barbaric and antiquated practices that should be outlawed.
HG
Hmmmm…I’ve seen reports that have linked male non-circumcision to certain types of cancer. Also, even people with good hygene habits can end up with smegma issues (no joke, the whole things can get inflamed like a doughnut). Also, I believe it reduces the change of transmission of AIDS.
Ever see the stable hand get the smegma out of a young stallion? 
Extremely, extremely rare. Non-issue.
There’s intevention as in a bit of soap and water ( I don’t even want to think about horses) and then there’s intervention with a knife in a warm moist area lush with bacteria. I know my preference.
In any case, what is interesting is how people view the issue when it is part of the culture.
HG
The difference is that the foreskin serves no purpose. The clit does. Also most male circumcisions are done in sterile environments. Most female ones are not.
It is rare for a man to suffer complications of circumcision whereas a woman has urinary problems, chances of fistula, a high mortality rate, and a slew of other complications.
A female circumcision is performed to keep sex from being enjoyable for the woman and to ensure her chastity. A male circumcision is often done for hygene.
NOt having one, it is difficult to put that one to the test.
SAF, please read a little that’s passed first. 
As for the notion the foreskin is a pointless bit of skin, it does in fact have a role to play in sexual enjoyment. The rise in modern use of male circumcision was also in part a desire to limit masturbation.
I see no difference in the attempts to justify male circumcision on the west with the justifications used by sub-Saharan Africans to mutilate their kiddies. They hold equally as dearly to their misguided explanations.
HG
Wrong.
NOt having one, it is difficult to put that one to the test.[/quote]
And frankly I’m not willing to mutilate myself to do a before and after comparison, in any case I’m quite sure what the results would be.
HG