Finally! Uganda Will Outlaw Female Circumcision

snap
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 01:53 pm: [report]

when is america going to catch up with the times and outlaw male circumcision?!  no body part is useless!

snap
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 01:54 pm: [report]

some americans think that cutting off part of a male’s penis will reduce masturbation and keep the penis cleaner.

tabby
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 02:02 pm: [report]

@ um no, America won’t ban male circumcision because a bunch of Americans are Jewish. That whole covenant between the Jews and God thing, you know.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 02:03 pm: [report]

I masturbate more than you and I aint got a foreskin. Shut the hell up and post on topic. You are seriously pissy on this male circumcision topic….christ almighty.

writergirl
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 02:10 pm: [report]

That’s great that they passed it, but how are they going to enforce it?  Based on what I know of the practice—because its not done in a sterile hospital—I think it will continue to be done, despite the law.  Deep-seated beliefs such as these are hard to break.  Same as if we decided to outlaw Male circumcision in this country—it goes against a strong religious base.  Unfortunately, I don’t think Uganda’s efforts will achieve all that much.

marv3mania
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 02:19 pm: [report]

@ um no—We shouldn’t outlaw male circumcision. We should, however, make the informed consent of the male on whom the circumcision is informed compulsory. In other words, parents shouldn’t be allowed to decide whether or not their newborn gets a snip.

roastchicken
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 02:23 pm: [report]

@ cheese: I’m with you on that one. How the heck is female circ the equivalent of male circ? It’s not!

Removing the clitoris, the only structure on a human being that’s sole purpose is pleasure, is not equal to removing a small portion of foreskin. Americans don’t circumcise males to keep them from masturbating. Where the hell did that comment come from, the 1950’s? I’ve known plenty of circ men who have no problem playing with their joystick. Get real.

roastchicken
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 02:35 pm: [report]

Wait, parents shouldn’t decide? Why not? If the parents can decide whether or not to bring the child into the world, they should also be able to make the choice whether to have their child circumcised. I’ve seen what happens to little boys, teens, and grown men when they’re not circumcised. We have at least 15 scheduled non infant circs a week! 

I’ve had this talk with plenty of surgeons I work with, and they say that it’s ridiculous that some people lable it as mutilation, or think that it shouldn’t happen because the baby can’t give consent. Give me a break! I’m sure the patients that come in to get circ’d later in life wished their parents had made the choice to get them cut when they were babies.

Amelia13
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 03:05 pm: [report]

It is about time this was outlawed, but sadly I doubt it will make much of a difference. Unless they come up with a way to strictly enforce it, chances are it will continue to happen.

B
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 03:25 pm: [report]

@ roastchicken: Amen. I, at the age of 22, I went through the whole process on my own (asking my primary physician for a referal to a urologist, a preliminary visit with the urologist, then weeks later the surgery, then a few more weeks later the follow up) to get “snipped” because my mother didn’t have the decency to agree with my father when I was born.

Needless to say, I am a firm believer in soon-after-birth circumcision. It’s a horrible experience to go through later in life. AND… the body is much more capable of healing the younger it is; while I’m mostly satisfied, there is noticeable small scar.

I Go To 11
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 04:09 pm: [report]

@ umno: So how do you explain an appendix, then, if “no body parts are considered useless”? Besides, as above posters have mentioned, male and female circumcision are totally different. Good Lord.

Nutmeg
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 04:19 pm: [report]

@I Go To 11, a 2007 Duke study may have actually found a reason for the appendix. It’s basically a back up place where the ‘good’ bacteria hang out and restock your intestines if you get sick.

I Go To 11
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 04:23 pm: [report]

@Nutmeg: Huh, and all this time I thought it served to only cause grief when inflamed. Good to know.

roastchicken
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 04:34 pm: [report]

@ nutmeg: First of all, the fact that your sentence contained the phrase “may have” doesn’t mean there’s proof of that. Second, ALL of the intestines have pretty much the same amount bacteria in it. The appendix is just as ‘dirty’ as the large and small intesines.

If the appendix has so much ‘good bacteria’ in it, people wouldn’t get appedicitis and have to have it removed or face the possibility of death. If that were the case, Dr’s would just leave the appendix inside the body, and let it heal itself since it contains so much ‘good bacteria’.

C’mon.

tattooed_redhead
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 04:43 pm: [report]

I, personally, am glad the docs removed my appendix when I was 11 instead of letting the good bacteria do its job! That being said, I do remember hearing about a study about the appendix saying that it wasn’t entirely a vestigial organ, that it may actually have point, but not enough for us to need in order to live.

roastchicken
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 04:48 pm: [report]

@ B: I’m sorry you had to go through that. I have a close friend who’s husband had to get a circ because everytime they had sex his forskin would tear. OUCH!

My boyfriend says he’s GLAD his parents chose to get him cut, and that he seriously doubts that he’d ever resent them for not giving him a choice in the matter.

Hugh7
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 07:18 pm: [report]

Meanwhile 36 youths have died from male circumcision in the last few weeks in Eastern Cape Province of South Africa alone. When you compare apples with apples, tribal with tribal, surgical with surgical, they’re not all that different. All are human rights abuses, all (absent informed consent of the person him/herself) should be outlawed.

@roastchicken: circumcision is not the first choice of treatment for “broken banjo-string” - at least not in countries outside the US, where it’s first choice of treatment for anything foreskin-related (including having a foreskin at all). In Finland, the lifetime risk of circumcision is one in 6000.

And not all “female circumcision” is clitoridectomy: This probably wasn’t: http://girlpooh.blogspot.com/2007/11/circumcision.html

_jsw_
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 07:33 pm: [report]

@Hugh7: As an uncircumcised male, I agree with your opinions about circumcision. However, every single one of your posts is railing against it. At some point, people will see your name and just skip past it if they’re all essentially saying the same thing, just as they skip past mine because they’re all pointless.

retro chic
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 07:45 pm: [report]

Thank you for this important article/topic, but to be clear:

* This is Genital Female Mutilation – not circumcision. It is the equivalent of hacksawing off the penis itself, not trimming the little hood thingy. I don’t think anyone would call Slavery “Involuntary or Uncontracted Employment.”

It’s so important to call things by their right name if effectual Change is the goal. I’ve tracked this awhile, and it sends mixed messages to condemn with euphemisms when someone’s abuse or a culture’s dangerous, immoral practice is at issue, ie, there is no choice, and has devastating lifelong med/psych fallout.

* Enforcement? First Uganda must draft the Bill before they can pass it, to enforce it. I agree – this will be very difficult to enforce.

The minister claims the gov’t will raid homes and places this is done, but, personally, I don’t see how they could intervene in time. What does it matter after the fact, the girl’s life is ruined just the same.

The mutilated girl/woman is in daily pain from the improperly severed nerve clusters; infections and scarring also inhibit sex, if you can call it that, is reserved for procreation if she can endure/fend off the husband the rest of the time.

Legislating, then enforcing, cultural deep-seated practices/behavior is a bugger. Ever hopeful… *all intact appendages crossed*

Nikki Dowling
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 06:57 am: [report]

@retro chic female genital mutilation and female circumcision are two different names for the same thing. However, within this category there are many different ways to do the actual “operation,” all of which sound very painful and horrific. I do agree that female circumcision sort of masks the atrocity that is this procedure.

natb11
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 07:02 am: [report]

How can anyone compare female genital mutilation to male circumcision? Why would a man want a foreskin? Foreskin seems unnesscessary. Also, male circumcision doesn’t take away pleasure. There is also a form of FGM that involves closing up the vagina so there is only a small hole for menstrual blood. I don’t understand why they do that. How do they expect women to have children if their vaginas are closed up? Why can’t they just teach their daughters about the consequences of sex? This shouldn’t happen but I assume some parents in places like the U.S. would think they have more reason to cut off their daughter’s clitoris than people in Uganda to prevent teen pregnancy because people talk about sex all the time and there are some very promiscuous women in the U.S. I don’t think it should happen though. I’m just saying that there’s really no excuse for them to do it unless they have high teen pregnancy or many unwanted pregnancies. I assume maybe they do it because they can’t get abortions or they don’t have birth control. But still, they should just teach about the consequences instead of doing that.

JackNO
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 07:04 am: [report]

Well this is good news, but at the same time they are pushing ahead with male circumcision in UGANDA.  It is said that MALE (MGM) and Female circumcision (FGM) lower HIV transmsission rate (Tanzania study says FGM cuts male to female HIV rate by over 50%). Taking away sexual pleasure zones should never be implemented for HIV risk change, especially in countries with good water.  If FGM can be outlawed, it is time for at least infant MGM to be banned.

What Roast Chicken and Retro Chic miss is that MGM does take away THE MAIN MALE pleasure zones.  FGM is horrible, but almost all FGM in Africa involves only the removal of the labia and clitoral hood.  Retro chick, the parts removed by MGM take away more pleasure nerve endings than the clitoris has and the clitoris is almost never touched in African FGM.  The parts taken by circumcision in US hospitals are about 20,000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings.  When this is taken, the main male pleasure zones are taken.  There are no touch or stretch sensors left.  BTW, males that lose the glans (and still have foreskin) can believe it or not still orgasm.  The men in the US missing their nerve endings from MGM can orgasm but it is not the same as natural pleasure.  Sex is changed for both partners from the cut.  Let us at least agree genital cutting should be banned as to any minor.

The topic is Genital Female Mutilation AND it is female circumcision—the cutting off of the labia and clitoral hood (much less pleasure sensors are lost compared to male cut)

IF IT IS SOOOO important to call things by their right name both circumcisions should be called genital mutilation as that is what they are.

natb11
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 07:47 am: [report]

I don’t understand how cutting the labia and clitoral hood stops a girl from experiencing pleasure. The clitoris is the most sensitive part. The labia and clitoral hood are not as sensitive as the clitoris. If you only get the clitoral hood and labia removed then you would probably still be able to feel pleasure from the clitoris if the cuts don’t get infected and if it heals ups. I think the removal of the clitoris is worse than male circumcision because some women prefer clitoral stimulation instead of penetration so it might be impossible or difficult for a woman without a clitoris to orgasm because penetration doesn’t really turn her on. Circumcised men can still orgasm. They don’t need foreskin to have an orgasm. Circumsized men probably don’t really care that they are circumsized because there’s nothing they can do about it and they don’t know what they are missing if it’s true that the foreskin is really sensitive. I doubt the foreskin is as sensitive as some people think it is. I think men push the foreskin back when they are going to have sex anyways, so I don’t see what the purpose of a sensitive foreskin would be if it’s not being stimulated.

JackNO
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 08:13 am: [report]

natb11,

Well you are not alone in not understanding.  So many people opine and they don’t know all the facts.  Why do you require that cutting the labia and clitoral hood stops a girl from experiencing pleasure?  ALL FGM is not about losing pleasure, that is a myth.  Most is about the woman being cleaner (this is bogus, but cleanliness and not pleasure removal is often the reason).

I agree that the removal of the clitoris is so very horrible (althogh most FGM does NOT reemove the clitoris).  Men don’t need thier glans (head) to have an orgasm, but no man wants that removed.  Most circumsized WOMen don’t really care that they have been circumsized because there’s nothing they can do about it and they don’t know what they are missing.

The foreskin has many parts and includes the MAIN male pleasure zones with THE fine touch and stretch sensors.  These have more nerve endings than the clitoris (that does not mean one is better than the other—they are different).  The foreskin parts give men great pleasure with vaginal sex.  Many cut men prefer oral—without those stretch and fine touch nerve endings, I understand why.  For me, natural vaginal sex is so much fun.  I am so happy to have my stretch sensors. 

DON"T doubt that the foreskin is as sensitive as some people think it is. Any man can test.  Run a finger nail down the glans over the inner foreskin parts and past the tip to the outer skin.  When a cut guy does this the most sensitive part is the scar.  For natural men, the inner foreskin and tip are most sensitive as the glans is dull to touch (it senses temp. and pressure).  The inner foreskin has those very special stretch sensors.

The foreskin goes back when men are aroused (going to have sex).  The vagina can pull it back more (for stetch sensor pleasure) and it gets pulled forward (but not over the galns) in outstroke. The cut removes this dynamics of sex (MGM changes sex!). The sensitive foreskin provides further degrees of pleasure and control—and cut has the PE issues, natural typically have no PE problems.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 08:18 am: [report]

@JackNO: No.

joyy
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 08:37 am: [report]

@JackNO - the difference is that circs in the western, developed world happen in a medically sound, humane, and professional manner.  FGM in Africa is usually done with none of those things.  If male circumcision occured in the fasion that most FGMs in Africa do - at 5+years old with no anesthetic and crude tools, like a broken bottle, I’d be with you. 

But that’s not the case.  Female circumcision as you describe it is an effing breeze compared to what a lot of women in Africa actually go through.  When male circumcision in the US resembles the brutalization of FGM in many rural/tribal Arican communities, then people will care about your diatribes. 

You have a valid point, but you’re comparing apples with dogs and that takes away from any validity of any point you make.

bumbler
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 08:48 am: [report]

Let’s not lose perspective here like we did in the other thread where circumcision was compared to slavery mmmk?  FGM is often performed on girls on the cusp of, or going through puberty. No anesthesia, no sterilization performed with crude tools such as rusty knives or pottery shards.  There are also male circumcisions that are performed this way.  Neither of these cases are comparable with circumcision performed in a hospital.  FGM is butchery performed to control women perpetuating stereotypes that female genitalia is dirty and that women are whores who are unable to control their sexual impulses without the aid of a man and they can only be valued for their purity or virginity.  Many, many women who have had the procedure performed on them now oppose it openly or work on small scale operations to prevent it from happening to young women they know.  I believe that is the topic at hand.

JackNO
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 09:10 am: [report]

On medically sound…. You are correct, but look into MRSA and circ.  It has been covered up quite a bit, but in the US there has been a serious MRSA problem for infants having genitals cut.  The complications in the US are huge, but not reported. Of course in the US babies are circed without anesthesia and it involves ripping connected membrane from glans AND a cutting off of erogenous tissue.

Joyy, a great deal of what you say is valid, but I am not sure I get the point.  There are many in Africa that do FGM under better conditions than you cite.  Of course as Hugh points out above, each year in S Africa many boys die or get a botched circumcisions.  Let’s all agree that cutting the labia and clitoral hood of a baby girl or teen, in a hospital is also wrong.  It is wrong to cut a baby boy in a hospital.  Certainly, doing it in the bush is worse, but doing it is heinous in itself…

Perceptible
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 09:17 am: [report]

I think we should outlaw snipping dogs’ tails and ears. It’s just mean and only for their “owner’s” vanity issues. The dogs don’t care what their ears and tails look like. Is that off topic? It sounded related in my head…

joyy
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 09:18 am: [report]

@JackNO - My point is that you’re using one point to get on a soapbox about another.  The fact that FGM (usually in its brutal form) was a long-held tribal/cultural tradition that has actually been addressed by an African country’s government to the point that it formally outlawed it is quite different from any valid points you have to support your opinion that all circumcisions are wrong. 

Given that the consequences and circumstances between western/humane male circ and FGM are so unbelievably different, I have little sympathy or energy to join a heated “but baby boys SHOULDN’T BE CUT” debate. 

I am not going to agree with you that it is wrong to cut a baby boy in a hospital, and that it’s simply worse to do it to a girl in a crude manner. 

Then again, that’s primarily from my personal experience of not knowing any guys who had issues from being cut, and knowing a guy who wasn’t but had it done at 30 y.o. because of health issues he was having (thankfully he has health insurance and enough income to do so). 

I don’t understand why some people are so dead set on doing it for their babies, but given the circumstances and the overall consequences, I’m not really up in arms about how other people make healthcare decisions for their family.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 09:20 am: [report]

@Perceptible: You are about as “On topic” as all the other schmucks commenting.

retro chic
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 09:20 am: [report]

Has this plane been hijacked? Male circ debates? Back to the topic of UGANDA FEMALE Genital Mutilation*...

For those in doubt about the actual FGM procedure:

There are 4 classifications of FGM. In Kapchorwa and Bukwa in Uganda, the type of FGM practiced is Type 2, as defined by World Health Organization (WHO):

Type 2 or Excision as defined by:
Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora.

According to law enforcement in Bukwa, Uganda, *the traditional “surgeons” cut off the clitoris and the labia minora* of the girls.

As I mentioned, laws alone won’t stop this practice. It is a start. It requires profound social change and education, too.

* @JackNO/others: I didn’t address MGM/male circ (nor won’t on this post, sorry all), but thanks for the update. FYI: Comparisons of male circ to FGM are inaccurate. If men here want male circ to be classified as MGM, consider contacting WHO. Thank you.

bumbler
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 09:25 am: [report]

How about you make one post on FGM that isn’t diminishing it or comparing it to male circumcision in the Western world?  MRSA is a serious problem in all hospitals with all surgeries or open wounds.  Many practitioners use some form of local on the baby either a nerve block, ring block or topical cream.  Without anesthesia FGM can lead to death from shock.  Long term effects include reoccurring urinary and reproductive tract infections, infertility, excessive scarring, studies have shown an increased risk of death for the babies of mutilated woman as well as increased risks to herself of hemorrhaging during or after birth.  Also for infibulated women where the labia are sewn together to create a small hole for expulsion or urine and menstrual blood the woman will often have to undergo more cutting: to open the hole for sex, to widen it for delivering a baby and are then required to have to procedure performed again after the birth! But no, thats on par with male circumcision performed in a hospital. *nod nod*

writergirl
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 09:30 am: [report]

Thanks you. retro chic.

retro chic
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 09:38 am: [report]

@writergirl: I believe you mentioned enforcement, too, so true.

great avatar, btw… what is that pic a “crop” of? [tic]

Hugh7
wrote on July 7 2009 @ 02:45 pm: [report]

@_jsw_: Thanks for the heads up, but I only react to what has been said (usually to point out silliness), and I don’t “rail”.

In this case, “Yoweri Museveni explained, ‘There is no part of a human body that is useless.’” If that’s his objection to FGC, it applies equally to MGC.

@retro chic: “It’s so important to call things by their right name if effectual Change is the goal. ... it sends mixed messages to condemn with euphemisms when someone’s abuse[d] or a culture’s dangerous, immoral practice is at issue, ie, there is no choice, and has devastating lifelong med/psych fallout. ” Right on, so don’t talk about “trimming the little hood thingy.” The baby girl whose story I linked to probably had no more than her “little hoody thingy” “trimmed” but it’s still a human rights abuse.

It was I who compared GC with slavery in the other thread, but only as bad customs that are widely accepted when they are widespread. Some people just don’t get analogy.

@joyy: Both MGC and FGC have brutal tribal versions and sterile hospital versions. Blue Cross Blue Shield covered FGC until 1977 - we don’t know how many US women living today are clitoridectomised, and quite possibly they don’t know it was done to them, but one, Patricia Robinett, has written a book about it, and she makes the comparison with MGC.

A group of Sierra Leonean women defends FGC for the social benefits it gives them (admitting them to secret WOMEN’s societies) and they point to western hypocrisy in condemning their custom while defending MGC. They also claim the right to do it to their daughters.

Why not just condemn it all?

Britrz
wrote on July 8 2009 @ 07:38 pm: [report]

I think the problem with this is that many tribal societies still see themselves autonomous from the governments that claim to have control over them.  The Ugandan government might have passed this law; however, the likelihood of the tribes actually following this law without extreme governmental interference is very slim.

hdaryl01
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 01:18 am: [report]

Folks, it’s great news that Uganda is outlawing female circumcision! Also known as FGM. There seems to be a lot of misconception on this blog as to what FGM is. So, here’s a link to the full 2008 WHO report: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf For those of you interested in knowing the facts, the WHO has 4 categories of FGM. If you page through to page 30 of the 47 page PDF you’ll find that the WHO defines Type I(a) FGM as “removal of the
clitoral hood or prepuce only”.

It’s a travesty that at the same time Uganda is not outlawing male circumcision, and has gone to such lengths to differentiate it from female circumcision, the dreaded FGM. What exactly do you think occurs in male circumcision? REMOVAL OF THE PREPUCE ONLY. So, how is “removing the prepuce only” FGM on a female, and proper circumcision on a male?

The hypocracy is shocking. Also more than a little xenophobic elitism. The same exact cultural, aesthetic, religious, and cultural justifications are used to promote male as well as female circumcision. The only difference is who practices male and female circumcision. Muslims, and Africans practice female circumcision. Thus it must be barbaric and primitive. Muslims and africans and JEWS and AMERICANS practice male circumcision. Thus, male circumcision gets a pass-“hygenic” “cultural” “religious”. Obviously, “GOOD” not because the same barbarians that practice female circumcision do it-muslims and africans, but because JEWS and AMERICANS do it.

75-80% of the males on the planet are uncircumcised, and have no problems, and have had no problems since the beginning of time. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Britain jumped on the circumcision bandwagon in the early 1900’s, and have jumped off in recent decades with rates in the single digits now. Why? Because there is NO MEDICALLY INDICATED REASON to perform the non-consensual amputation, and perennial “benefit” studies are consistently refuted, and studies showing more harm than good keep cropping up.

Query: why does the United States with the highest male circumcision rate of any industrialized country on the planet also have the highest HIV/AIDS infection rate of any industrialized country on the planet….........by a factor of many…......compared to all other industrialized countries with negligible circumcision rates.

All genital cutting is mutilation and should be outlawed universally.

retro chic
wrote on July 9 2009 @ 07:50 am: [report]

@Hugh7: I’m sorry you have the need to excerpt my statements out of a clear context for your personal, biased means. To be clearer, my anatomical side reference, albeit remote, was my semisarcastic disgust at the serial-hijacking of a topic discussing the actual barbaric procedure of FGM by those who attempt to draw direct comparisons to safer, American infant circumcision, that’s all—an issue, but off topic. As for the slavery analogy, since I’m not in the habit of channeling people, esp people like how you present, consider it an unfortunate coincidence (for me). So, it’s OK to skip the narcissistic commentary about “getting” your analogies from another hijacked thread long abandoned. Your cause would be better served by a more objective representation of it (as another noted, railing, and gunning for derisive debates using biased excerpts, otoh, does not). You have much to say, and I’m sure you’ll get the focus you’re looking for.

@hdaryl01: FYI, Uganda uses Type 2 FGM as defined by WHO (as noted in my 2nd previous comment). Your xenophobic elitist ref on this thread glosses over the specific differences in procedure and conditions responsible for the FGM’s devastating med/physical/psych damage going beyond deformation and into childbirth and medical/sexual/psychological health.

If nothing else, this brings attention to all “cutting” and all its motivations, conditions and manifestations and I’m sure it will get people to study further, and effect changes—the desired goal I assume. That said, this post is about FGM, so understand the static when throwing out any “queries.”

JackNO
wrote on July 10 2009 @ 07:00 am: [report]

Male circumcision is certainly mutilation. RoastChicken wishes to ignore the fact that MGM like FGM takes ayay erogenous tissue.  In the case of the parts removed by MGM, they ere the most sensitive, about 20,000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings.  This is the main source of sexual pleasure for the male.  Why is that not significant?  The parts have more nerve endings than the clitoris!.  No one can say one source of sexual pleasure loss is more than another, any taking of erogenous tissue is WRONG.  Taking it from a minor or a Baby (ripping and cutting) is so wrong. 

ALMOST NO ONE comes in and gets circ’d later in life.  These parts feel so good, almost no one wished their parents had made the choice to get them cut when they were babies.

Hugh7
wrote on July 10 2009 @ 02:35 pm: [report]

Does anyone have figures for the death rate from FGC - in Uganda alone, for example? (The toll of males in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa, since May has now reached 41.) Comparisons are odious, but it can’t get much worse than death, can it?

kingcobra
wrote on August 2 2009 @ 02:22 am: [report]

I think all you dick cutting nutters are hypocrites. Cutting women is bad but cutting men is good? You should all have your heads examined. I’m uncut as well as most of the men I knew of from where I hail and no one I knew ever had any medical issues with their wrinkles. The American idea that there is something congenitally wrong with the human penis is madness. I live here in the states now and every woman I have slept with has commented on how much better they like my normal, intact penis. Whenever someone defends a man’s right to choose for himself what he wants to do with his penis, I always see a bunch of hysterical and biased Americans defending their right to mutilate little boys and it turns my stomach. It’s not okay to cut a baby boy any more than it would be okay to tattoo him at birth. Why don’t you yanks see that? Well, shamble on in your blissful ignorance. Keep popping those Viagras and buying the lube and tell yourself that what you’re doing is sane and ethical. Maybe some day you’ll grow up and join the rest of the civilized world. You do know that only 20% of the world population is cut, right? The rest of us get along just fine without circumcision, thank you very much. You think it’s so clean and healthy, but the US has enormous HIV and STD rates. You’d think one or two of you would figure it out, but I guess you can’t pull yourselves away from the telly long enough to think about it rationally.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on August 2 2009 @ 02:49 am: [report]

@kingcobra: Anyone who names them self that is asking for retribution. I am cut and like it, you said you’re not so shut the #&@$% up and sit your ass down you dumb ignorant #&@$%. You uncut schmucks whom decry circumcision are nuts, what reasoning do you have to go crazy from it? Why? You aren’t cut, you didn’t go through it at any point so shut the #&@$% up. At this point you are old enough to take care of your own dick, so do so, but I see no reasoning to flip a #&@$% when it doesn’t apply to YOUR #&@$% dick.

kingcobra
wrote on August 5 2009 @ 06:04 pm: [report]

Ah, I see another intelligent and literate yank feels the need to put his two cents in, and by attacking me personally with buckets of foul language. That’s a turn. Why don’t you turn off your telly and take a pass on the six pack tonight, maybe crack open a book and educate yourself so you don’t sound like a Jerry Springer guest. My concern stems from a general sympathy for the human rights abuse of having your genitals carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey without consent—both for the women and for men. A mate I know had a circumcision a few years back (not for any problem, just thought the skanks would find it sexier or exotic or some such tripe) and he said it was the worst mistake he ever made. The only one who sounds like a nutter is you, mate, with your cursing and stereotypically hysterical American reaction to the implication that you might have been damaged from having the most sensitive and entertaining part of your penis removed. My condolences.