~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]MiracleRiver 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Jake H. Waskett is a Circlist member who [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jakew spends a great deal of his time editing Wikipedia] to show a pro-circumcision bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jakew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jakew
Jake has made over 1,232 edits to the Circumcision article alone, over twice as many edits as the runner up. Jake's first edit to the article was on the 18th of October 2004, and his last edit was today. Jake now averages about one edit every 1 days, 20 hours, 29 minutes and 21 seconds, for the Circumcision article.
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/articleinfo/index.php?article=Circumcision&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
There are those on the Internet who discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction and about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions.<ref>Christopher P Price. Male Non-therapeutic circumcision: The Legal and Ethical Issues. In Male and Female Circumcision, Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice (Denniston GC, Hodges FM and Milos MF eds.) New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999: 425-454.
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price2/
Jake is one of these individuals. Some call them [[circumfetish|Circumfetishists]].
Jake is in regular contact with [[Brian J. Morris]], and good friends with [[Vernon Quaintance]]. He is also a member of the [[Gilgal Society]].
http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/GFW-EN%200712-1.pdf
= Wikipedia Edits = In the year 2010 alone, Jake has edited the following Wikipedia articles * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jakew: *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS AIDS] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanitis_xerotica_obliterans Balanitis xerotica obliterans] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_identity_disorder Body integrity identity disorder] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah Brit milah] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoma_of_the_penis Carcinoma of the penis ] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision Circumcision] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV Circumcision and HIV] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law Circumcision and law] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies Circumcision controversies] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris Clitoris] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer David Reimer] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfigurement Disfigurement] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsal_slit Dorsal slit] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erection Erection] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erogenous_zone Erogenous zone] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_circumcision Ethics of circumcision] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting Female genital cutting] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forcible_retraction_of_the_foreskin Forcible retraction of the foreskin] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin Foreskin] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration Foreskin restoration] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis Frenulum of prepuce of penis] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutilation Genital modification and mutilation] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glans_penis Glans penis] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision History of male circumcision] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_size Human penis size] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher_tax_(antisemitic_canard) Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langerhans_cell Langerhans cell] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Milos Marilyn Milos] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau Mary Kay Letourneau] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meatal_stenosis Meatal stenosis] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meatotomy Meatotomy] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision Medical analysis of circumcision] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner's_corpuscle Meissner's corpuscle] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphimosis Paraphimosis] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis Penis] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis Phimosis] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastibell Plastibell] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preputial_mucosa Preputial mucosa] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision Prevalence of circumcision] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision Religious male circumcision] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_device Restoration device] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision Sexual effects of circumcision] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma Smegma] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lewis Stephen Lewis] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision Talk:Circumcision] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Tape T-Tape] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jakew User talk:Jakew] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayjg User talk:Jayjg] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]
[–]colorcodebot 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I've detected multiple hexadecimal color codes in your comment. Please allow me to provide visual representation. #ffff00 #ffe87c #ffff00 #ff0000 #ffff00
Don't want me replying on your comments again? Respond to this comment with: 'colorcodebot leave me alone'
[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I always make a point of calling it "male genital mutilation". Requires some explanation at first, of course, but I do what I can to spread the idea around.
[–]HigglyBumps 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Same, spread the word. Take offense to people talking about it like its nothing. The only way movements move is when you move people with your movement.
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That's a very interesting point on the subtly of the difference in language. I had never actually noticed that before.
I wonder what the phrase is for 'female genital mutilation" among people who don't consider the practice abhorrent. I'm sure it's as innocuous as "circumcision"
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The practice is really only acceptable in Africa and Asia (well, except the American Academy of Pediatrics) so it's whatever they call it in their languages. But the whole reason feminists pushed for the term "FGM" is because they thought "female circumcision" made it sound acceptable, which of course male circumcision is, amirite?
[–]mads-80 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
current federal law, which “makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the United States
Holy institutional sexism, Batman.
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When you call it that, it sounds so much worse. Like buzz phrases in politics.
[–]MiracleRiver 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"Jake is still at it ... trying to convince people that his personal preference for the genitally mutilated penis should be embraced by everyone. He cites studies and argues points, but then you learn that his REAL interest is not in facts, but in his life-long fascination for genital cutting, and for the permanently exposed glans.
If Jake gets off on these things, fine, but why try to convince other people to share his childhood fantasy? Might it be a lack of self-confidence and a craving for the approval and support from others? After all, it was a childhood fantasy that turned him on to genital cutting ... NOT any ''studies''
= Online Posts = == Adequacy Forum Post == === 2001 Dec 6th ===
"Six days ago, I finally got circumcised by Dr. Zarifa of London. he was very agreeable and performed at my request what looks like it will be a 'total' circumcision (ie one that is tight when flaccid and the skin completely immobile and slightly shiny when erect, with public hair and the scrotum pulled onto the lower shaft</span>). The scar line is about half way down my shaft when flacid (I'm still trying to minimize erections so watch this space for later reports).
There is still some pain and swelling as I would expect, but everything seems to be healing ok. I'm taking a multivitamin and B and C suplements in order to help things along. I guess I'll start with vitamin E in a few days.
I had originally planned to go to David Cornell in the States, but my situationv didn't allow that. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell Dr Zarifa did an excellent job.
I'm really proud to be circumcised at last, and look forward to keeping everyone here updated."
"Thank you!
Yes, I recall our correspondence.I find it difficult to believe that I would regret something that I've regretted not having done since age 5!</span>
I'm pleased to report that it's now day 9. I've taken all but one of the stitches out. The bruising has gone, and the skin has bonded well on the top and right sides. Dr. Zarifa warned me that the skin would open a little due to the tightness, and sure enough on the left and underside it has. He assured me that this would fill in and become a neat line, so I am trusting the mysterious processes of the human body to do this. I'm getting a couple of drops of blood from the frenulum area from nighttime erections. The swelling is slowly going down, though it has by no means gone.
Regards, Jake"
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I was listening to a show on NPR about the price of circumcision being high at one hospital vs another. They had the sound byte of a doctor performing the procedure, the baby crying, and him saying, "there we go, that wasn't so bad was it?" and it bothered me deeply and made me sad that the baby's rights were never considered. And the show didn't even bother to bring it up. :(
[–]Disproving_Negatives 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link
To be fair, there are important differences between the two.
I'd still call male cirumcision - mutilation, though. The loss of sensitivity and sexual pleasure is irreversible and should only be done (1) in medical emergencies or (2) as a personal choice by the affected person when the male has reached adulthood (Maybe a little earlier. The point is that he has to be capable to make an informed decision. The decision should not be done for him by his parents.)
[–]Pecanpig 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link
What are the important differences in your mind?
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
One is done for religious/cultural/aesthetic reason and involves the unnecessary removal of parts of a childs genitals without their consent for no legitimate medical reason and the other is . . . um . . . entirely accepted in the west.
[–]Disproving_Negatives 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Female circumcision has more severe consequences since more sections of the genital are removed. Male circumcision in contrast is mostly of comparatively little harm. This is anectodal but a male friend of mine had to do it for medical reasons and is actually happier now.
Just to be clear, I consider both forms to be invasive mutilations. However I see important differences. Since we are talking about wikipedia anyway - if you can read the articles on both female and male cirumcision and claim that they are of equal harm - I don't know how that's possible.
However, convince me if I'm wrong. I have no problem changing my mind.
[–]femdelusion 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can try.
For me it isn't about the consequences as such. It's about respecting the bodily integrity of a human being. (Although you could argue that ultimately this is a mere rule of thumb that's ultimately grounded in some sort of consequentialism if you wanted to). Let's suppose you really hate your earlobes, and wish you didn't have them. This is unknown to me, but nonetheless I drug you and surgically remove your earlobes as you're unconscious.
Now, in one sense, you'd be pleased because finally you've had your horrible earlobes removed, which is what you wanted anyway, and for free at that. But I take it you wouldn't be happy about the fact that your bodily integrity was intentionally violated by me? I would say that I'd behaved appallingly, and that you'd have every right to be spitting bricks about it.
When I look at FGM and MGM, the two strike me as incredibly similar because they involve the same violation of rights. Even if there weren't all sorts of further harms, I'd still find them objectionable for the same reason. You just don't go around chopping bits off people incapable of consent without it being medically necessary.
The argument that MGM and FGM are very different, therefore, to me presupposes precisely what I deny - which is that it is this violation of someone's human rights that is the fundamental issue.
[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Female circumcision has more severe consequences since more sections of the genital are removed.
False ~80% of the time.
Male circumcision in contrast is mostly of comparatively little harm.
False ~80% of the time, including the however many baby boys who are killed by this.
This is anectodal but a male friend of mine had to do it for medical reasons and is actually happier now.
Good for him.
Unfortunately I lost the article when my PC got formatted a while ago but the Wikipedia one is VARY biased. According to the study I read well over 80% of female circumcisions consisted of nothing more than removal of the clitoral hood for hygiene reasons which is significantly less damaging that removal of the foreskin. The other ~20% of the time they also removed the labia minora or "trimmed" them and only in an almost unnoticeable amount of situations did they do what Wikipedia suggests.
[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's subjective. There are women who underwent female circumcision(FGM) as newborns and who will defend it and feel as though their sex lives are fine because they don't really know any better, much like there are a lot of guys who were circumcised who defend it as well. And there are women who undergo labia surgery willingly and might even be happy about it afterwards. The fact is, the foreskin actually serves quite a few different purposes(like protecting the glans, keeping it moist, giving fluidity of motion during sex/masturbation, etc), and has the highest concentration of nerve endings on the penis. It could easily be comparable to a labia or even a clitoris in those regards. The fact that so many man have learned to make the best of the mutilated penis they grew up(hence the defensiveness), and simply don't realize what exactly it is that they are missing, doesn't mean that they don't lose something pretty significant.
Not only is this is anecdotal, it is also completely biased. A man who had a late life circumcision(MGM) would have to defend his choice to have the procedure done, if not even only to save face or out of denial. People tend to get very defensive about irreversible procedures that they underwent, and most people struggle with the idea that they would have lost something permanently.
A man that has the procedure done because he's been made to feel ashamed of his intact penis because it's different than the majorities or it's made fun of in close circles might feel happier with it gone but that doesn't make circumcision a good thing or even a healthy solution. The problem here is the grief he was given for being different, rather than the foreskin.
A man who needs to have a circumcision performed for medical reasons would have had a bad experience with his foreskin as well, either because there was something wrong with it or because it was not properly taken care of, and would eventually come to only remember those bad experiences which lead to his decision to have a circumcision in the first place.
Regardless, most men that have late life circumcisions aren't typically happy about losing their foreskin, and that's when choose to go through with it. The vast majority of uncircumcised men, who understand the value of their foreskin, wouldn't want to lose their foreskin(even if it was offered to them in a quick and completely painless way). If you were to take a hundred uncircumcised men, perform a circumcision on each one of them, and ask them if they like it better this way; I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them would respond negatively. I'd say 99.9% of them would probably fight to keep it.
[–]aPseudonymPho 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Alright, here it is plain and simple.
This is simply not true in the context that you're using it and really, in the context that pretty much everyone uses the words male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation. What you've erroneously done, is lump every single type of MGM into the label "Male Circumcision", and every single type of FGM into "Female Circumcision", and compare them across each other as a cumulative group.
When you do this, there is absolutely no difference between male and female genital mutilation.
If you want to make any kind of meaningful comparison you need to specify and clarify exactly what types of genital mutilation you're looking at.
Breaking them up by their various types, some kinds of male genital mutilation are worse, and some kinds of female genital mutilation are worse. They stack up in a mixed block of damage, both physiological and psychological, that is inflicted on the victim. Some male, then some female, more male, more female, all the way down the line from that most to least severe versions of both.
When you talk about FGM like that (and pretty much everyone), you're talking about the most damaging, and the least common forms. When you talk about MGM you're talking about a procedure which is moderately damaging, and most common. This is a biased and poor comparison because when you lump them together, you apply the horrors and severity of the worst procedures which rarely ever happen, to the least damaging procedures of FGM which pretty much represent all of the FGM still occurring in most of the world today. Then you do the opposite to MGM, and only address the most common, and somewhat damaging procedure. You look at the two through these frameworks and say, "See? FGM is soooooo much worse".
It's like saying Ferrari's are fast, and a ferrari is a car, therefore all cars are fast. It's cut and dry false equivalence.
Male circumcision, is far more damaging than the least damaging, and most common forms of female genital mutilation (the ritualistic pin-prick/blood drawing). THAT is the reality of circumcision in the world. Most girls whom are still being genitally mutilated, are having a bit of blood drawn. Most boys whom are being genitally mutilated, are having entire chunks of their sexual anatomy lopped off for no reason.
I could go further into all sorts of other reasons that is a poor comparison and really erroneous stance to take about the two, but I think the point has been made.
Unless you clarify which specific types of genital mutilation you're talking about and comparing across, you cannot say anything about the two being different, because on an overall macro-scale, they aren't different at all.
[–]Kuato2012 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Do you have a source for the comment that the ritualistic blood drawing is the most common form of FGM? I have always been under the impression that the most severe forms were the most common.
[–]aPseudonymPho 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It is cited information, but I don't have the source offhand. I'm preparing for a final exam atm, and don't have time nor interest to dig it up. I invite you to search yourself however.
Wikipedia for a quick fix says,
The WHO divides FGM into four categories (see image below right for Types I–III).[16] Around 85 percent of women experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III.[53]
I've seen these numbers verified from multiple different sources however, and consistently infibulation ranks among the least frequently performed procedure by a huge margin. Wiki lists type 1 and 2 as clitoral hood removal and clitoridectomy. It doesnt have any mention of ritual blood drawing, but every source I've found which does include pinpricking reasonably places it under type I. iirc type I and II break down into approximately 60-80% and 20-40% of type1/2 procedures performed (since wiki makes no particular mention of incidence across these).
Type 2 (clitoridectomy) is where the line between worse or equal starts to get hazy. All evidence I've seen, places Type 2 as equally, or less damaging than male circumcision, with all of the same arguments used to say male circumcision isn't damaging being found in victims of type 2 FGM. A few studies show more than 80% of women whom have undergone infibulation (complete removal of genital structures or close to) are able to achieve orgasm, describe their sex lives as satisfactory, and the aesthetic appeal more than desireable. Such studies were of course performed in Africa where the social/cultural pressure to be circumcised as a female is great. Goes to show just how much ones personal opinion about circumcision/GM plays into their perceptions and experiences with it.
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If not the genitals where is the foreskin located? Is it hanging off the kids nose?
[+][deleted] -19 points-18 points-17 points 12 years ago* (42 children) | Copy Link
FGM is an attempt to control the sexuality of women, and physically prevents them from having sex without experiencing a LOT of pain. Often the clitoris is removed and the vagina is sewn shut. It's an abhorrent practice. EDIT: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ Feel free to continue downvoting me for posting facts though.
[–]Eulabeia 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
FGM is an attempt to control the sexuality of women
That was the motivation behind MGM being popularized in a America too.
[–]hydroxylacid -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
How do you control the sexuality of women by mutilating baby boys?
[–]Azrael-sama 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
By making sex more rough and dry for them in absence of a partner with foreskin, that's how. More pain during sex, less desire to have it.
[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Fair point. But the difference is that MGM doesn't really accomplish that, while FGM actually does (in some cases) by removing the clitoris and/or fusing the vagina. The motivations may have been the same at one point but the outcome has been different don't you agree?
[–]Eulabeia 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
the outcome has been different don't you agree?
Yes, one is considered a human rights violation globally while the other is not.
[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
How is circumcision repressing men? People do it largely because they believe that it has positive health benefits. I don't know if said health benefits are necessarily worth cutting someone's dick for, but the motivation for doing it is different.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
People in developing countries practice FGM because they believe it has positive social and health benefits. The motivation for FGM, you say up above, is irrelevant. Why is it suddenly relevant when the victim is male?
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The perceived health benefits are irrelevant. Some of the alleged benefits are so small I question the logic in even bringing them up (i.e. hygiene).
Unless that penis is attached to you, it's not your place to decide.
[+][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Read this: http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887324798904578531063301112102?mg=reno64-wsj# The World Health Organization considers circumcision as a method of preventing HIV, it is known to prevent urinary tract infections and reduce the risk of a number of STDs. The American Academy of Pediatrics reversed their stance on it due to findings of health benefits, so I hardly think the health benefits are so small that they're irrelevant.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A UTI is not a very severe issue, for everything else you would wear a condom if STDs were an issue whether or not you're circumcised, so that's irrelevant too.
[–]nwz123 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
But the difference is that MGM doesn't really accomplish that, while FGM actually does (in some cases) by removing the clitoris and/or fusing the vagina.
It accomplishes that, but by decreasing the functionality in terms of sex (though it does still do that, as a consequence), but rather, by limiting male sexuality (or rather, control it) via objectification. How many times is it cited that a circumcised penis 'looks better'? That's because it's been normalized and it sits in the back of our psyches every time it comes up. That's why there's such a thing as shaming men for their genitals, based on its looks, length, and other perceptions of 'male virility' that aren't often realistic (in other words: it's usefulness to others).
But anyways, I digress. The main function of MGM, I think, is the contribution to our great tradition in society (normalization) to treat men like shit for society's betterment (read: the ends justify the means). For example, the way in which MGM is spoken about reinforces society's empathy gap for men: 'it's just a little snip', is often said about it, downplaying the known pain it causes (not to mention the deaths). This is a normalization process that inculcates males (babies, really) into our culture of pain and violence. It exposes that to them at such a young age, really.
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't think the main reason for it is to make one's dick look better. People often do it based on thinking that it has health benefits (a point that I need to do more research on). My parents did it because of that. Saying that society does it purely to inflict pain on men is taking it a little too far imo. If done in infancy, children won't even remember that it happened.
[–]nwz123 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I didn't say purely, I said mainly. And often when you challenge people on the health benefits...what do they defer too, if not those other excuses? So whether or not they really believe them is not the issue here. If it was, then there wouldn't be so much push-back against seeing it for what it really is.
[–]kurokabau 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Is removing the clitoris not the same principle as removing the foreskin? Both make sex much less enjoyable.
Fusing the vagina is horrendous though, I dont think there is a male equivalent to that, short to fusing the end of the penis up.
[–]linearThinker 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Argument from authority? We can do that, too:
"The study findings did not reveal any clear immediate or long-term physical or psychological complications of FC for girls or women. ... In conclusion, our literature review could not lead to a clear indication that FC practices in Indonesia violate women’s and girl-child’s human rights. "
Source: Female Circumcision in Indonesia Extent, Implications and Possible Interventions to Uphold Women’s Health Rights. Population Council; Jakarta, Sep 2003; USAID
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
Okay, so the "in conclusion" sentence meant that they have not yet gathered the evidence to claim anything. And then they listed ways in which to further study this.
I also love how your ellipses replaced this part: "This evidence, and the fact that it is done without the consent of the girl and without clear health benefits or religious mandate is enough to ix classify this act as a violation of human rights, specifically children’s rights and women’s sexual and reproductive rights. The practice of FC in Indonesia can therefore be said to violate the rights of the child as guaranteed under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by Indonesia in 1990."
I love when people cherrypick sentences, it's so good for the argument.
Moving on, this paper also explains the various forms of FC, the most common being a ritualistic "poking" or "pricking" in which no excision or incision of genitalia occurs. These forms, the ones where no cuts or made nor is any part of the genitlia removed, obviously will not have lasting physical or psychological effects because nothing is removed or irreversibly damaged.
Did you even read the paper? Or maybe you did, but you decided to come up with your conclusions. And I'm actually a bit confused - are you arguing that it is cool to cut off part of a person's genitalia?
[–]linearThinker 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Okay, so the "in conclusion" sentence meant that they have not yet gathered the evidence to claim anything.
No, it means they found no evidence in the medical literature to conclude there are physical or psychological complications.
also love how your ellipses replaced this part: "This evidence, and the fact that it is done without the consent of the girl and without clear health benefits or religious mandate is enough to ix classify this act as a violation of human rights, specifically children’s rights and women’s sexual and reproductive rights. The practice of FC in Indonesia can therefore be said to violate the rights of the child as guaranteed under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by Indonesia in 1990."
This is in a completely different section of the paper.
Me too. Here's what WHO says about the reasons for female circumcision (emphasis mine):
Psychosexual reasons : perceived beliefs that reduction or elimination of the sensitive tissue of the outer genitalia, particularly the clitoris, can attenuate sexual desire in the female, maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, and increase male sexual pleasure. Male attitudes to sex and sexual pleasure in the communities practicing female circumcision may support this belief. For example, anecdotal reports suggest that in some communities practicing infibulation, achievement of difficult penetration of a tight vagina was a proof of virginity following marriage; Sociological reasons : identification with the cultural heritage, initiation of girls into womanhood, social integration, and the maintenance of social cohesion; Hygiene and aesthetic reasons : the external female genitalia are considered dirty and unsightly and are to be removed to promote hygiene and provide aesthetic appeal; Myths : enhancement of fertility and promotion of child survival; Religious reasons : some Muslim communities practice FGM in the belief that it is demanded by the Islamic faith although this customs, however, predates Islam.
Psychosexual reasons
: perceived beliefs that reduction or elimination of the sensitive tissue of the outer genitalia, particularly the clitoris, can attenuate sexual desire in the female, maintain chastity and virginity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, and increase male sexual pleasure. Male attitudes to sex and sexual pleasure in the communities practicing female circumcision may support this belief. For example, anecdotal reports suggest that in some communities practicing infibulation, achievement of difficult penetration of a tight vagina was a proof of virginity following marriage;
Sociological reasons
: identification with the cultural heritage, initiation of girls into womanhood, social integration, and the maintenance of social cohesion;
Hygiene and aesthetic reasons
: the external female genitalia are considered dirty and unsightly and are to be removed to promote hygiene and provide aesthetic appeal;
Myths
: enhancement of fertility and promotion of child survival;
Religious reasons
: some Muslim communities practice FGM in the belief that it is demanded by the Islamic faith although this customs, however, predates Islam.
Source: WHO. 1996. Female Genital Mutilation: Information Kit. Geneva: Women’s Health Family and Reproductive Health - World Health Organization, August.
So, by WHO's own statements, female circumcision has many reasons, including: religious, aesthetic, health, social, hygiene, while sexual reasons are speculatory ("male attitudes may"...) and based on "anecdotal reports".
Did you even read the paper? Or maybe you did, but you decided to come up with your conclusions.
I posted no conclusions of my own; merely quoted excerpts from the paper.
And I'm actually a bit confused - are you arguing that it is cool to cut off part of a person's genitalia?
I was quoting an authority with a different point of view than the WHO.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As far as the "evidence" bit goes, it sounds like we agree. They were unable to conclusively prove anything.
And all of the WHO points are correct. Those are mostly cultural/religious reasons for FGM. Doesn't mean they are legitimate excuses for it. I think that we can both agree that it is a human right's violation and just WRONG to mutilate another person's genitalia, even if it is your own infant's. I was just confused as to why you were posting those random, cherrypicked sentences from the paper. Seemed like you were trying to justify female genital mutilation.
[+][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
They didn't find anything because they didn't comduct a study looking for it, as the article stated. Read the paragraph that comes after:
"however, direct observation of procedures showed that FC practice in Indonesia certainly involves pain and real genital cutting in about three-quarters of cases. This evidence, and the fact that it is done without the consent of the girl and without clear health benefits or religious mandate is enough to classify this act as a violation of human rights, specifically children’s rights and women’s sexual and reproductive rights."
Your own study found FC to be a harmful practice. Link to article: http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/frontiers/reports/Indonesia_FGM.pdf
[–]linearThinker 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
They didn't find anything because they didn't comduct a study looking for it, as the article stated.
Read it again: "The study findings did not reveal any clear immediate or long-term physical or psychological complications of FC for girls or women."
And your own WHO source did not conduct a study (or reviewed any studies, for that matter) but simply made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.
Read the paragraph that comes after:
Let's read it together:
"however, direct observation of procedures showed that FC practice in Indonesia certainly involves pain and real genital cutting in about three-quarters of cases. This evidence, and the fact that it is done without the consent of the girl and without clear health benefits or religious mandate is enough to classify this act as a violation of human rights, specifically children’s rights and women’s sexual and reproductive rights." Your own study found FC to be a harmful practice.
Your own study found FC to be a harmful practice.
Not based on any aspects that are unique to female circumcision, but on aspects which it shares with male circumcision: pain, genital cutting, lack of consent, and without clear health benefits.
[+][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/MY01023/DSECTION=why-its-done
The AAP reversed their stance on circumcision after researched yielded numerous possible health benefits such as fewer urinary tract infections, decreased chances of contracting certain STDs and reduced rates of penile cancer. If the AAP has been swayed by the research done, it must have at least some merit. Also, male circumcision is recommended and done with anesthetic, which overwhelmingly isn't used in Indonesia. EDIT: The study also wasn't looking for psychological effects, so just because they didn't find them doesn't mean they don't exist.
[–]linearThinker 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If the AAP has been swayed by the research done, it must have at least some merit.
Not really.
More on that
Also, male circumcision is recommended and done with anesthetic,
EDIT: The study also wasn't looking for psychological effects, so just because they didn't find them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Doesn't mean they do exist.
Feel free to continue downvoting me for posting facts though.
You didn't post facts. You posted a pamphlet published by a political organization.
[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Are you realy doubting the World Health Organization? If you doubt the validity of their findings, why don't you post some non-political organization findings that contradict the WHO. And if you want more sources:
http://w3.ifrc.org/what/health/mch/fmg.asp
http://history.hyde.wikispaces.net/file/view/1011+HIS12+U1+CM10+Handout+Female+Genital+Mutilation+by+Dorkenoo+and+Elworthy.pdf
http://www.desertflowerfoundation.org/en/what-is-fgm/
[–]Pecanpig 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Actually, they remove the clitoral hood...the female analog to the foreskin in that it's not vital but is used to cover the glans.
[+][deleted] -21 points-20 points-19 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
You're wrong. All of the types remove the clitoris or the labia: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
[–]Eulabeia 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
All of the types remove the clitoris or the labia
Even your own freaking source says that's not true.
[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yeah I was looking at a different list. The majority of these procedures are still done with the intent and effect of inhibiting women from having sex.
[–]Pecanpig 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I wonder what it's called when they don't?....
[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
The entire point of the procedure is to limit women's ability to have sex. Back up what you said previously with a source if you want to contest what I said.
[–]Pecanpig 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
I'm going to go ahead and just apply the same argument to male circumcision.
Your move.
[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I don't even understand what you're saying. That's not the go-to argument for every gender issue. Does being circumcised limit one's ability to have sex? No. Does being circumcised severely inhibit the pleasure derived from sex? No. Do most Female circumcisions do one or both of those things? Yes. Back to you.
[–]Pecanpig 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I don't even understand what you're saying.
Sucks to be you
Does being circumcised limit one's ability to have sex?
Yes.
Does being circumcised severely inhibit the pleasure derived from sex?
Do most circumcisions do one or both of those things?
Back to you.
[–]ThePigman -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The entire point of the procedure is to limit women's ability to have sex.
So, this must be the idea of other women, right? After all, if you limit women's ability to have sex you are also limiting how much sex men get. Most people are straight, after all.
[–]nwz123 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Getting your foreskin chopped off because it looks 'aesthetically good' to some people isn't an attempt to control a group's sexuality? Wat?
That said, I agree with you on the other parts: at least the penis is functional in terms of pleasure. With FMG, that shit is just....gone. It's horrible.
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When I said sexuality I meant their ability to practice sex. I fully understand that circumcision can be considered a bad thing, but I feel like FGM is just worse in most cases, as it affects people's ability to have sex and the pleasure they get from it. When you take someone's clit away and make sex painful for them, I feel like it's almost like you're making them into something you just stick your dick in, reducing their humanity in a way.
[–]hydroxylacid 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I disagree with your (1): It can be medically neccessary without being an emergency. My brother was circumcised at the age of 12, because his foreskin was too tight.
[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hydroxylacid 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I'm not a doctor, so I'm not qualified to assess the necessity og the operation. I only know that I was told that it was too tight, and that the doctor had said that it needed to come off. Here in Norway circumcision is very rare (at least among ethnic norwegians).
[–]rawbface 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I think the issue about male circumcision should be that it is done to infants without consent. I would never do it to my kids.
As an adult male who is happy with my circumcision, however, I take strong offense to anyone who insists that I am "mutilated". Not only is it an insult, but it demeans actual victims of genital mutilation. I am "mutilated" in the same way a girl who regrets safe sex was "raped". Seems to be an unpopular opinion around here.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You are mutilated. Just because you dont want to accept it doesnt make it untrue.
[–]rawbface -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
When I see comments like this, it does nothing to convince me of any truth. It only confirms my suspicions that it's not about unnecessary surgery or non-consensual body modification. Comments like yours only show only that it's about having an arrogant holier-than-thou mentality, as if somehow a little piece of skin is the crux of humanity.
wut?
[–]The_4th_Little_Pig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
If male circumcision was the same as female circumcision they'd cut off the tip of your dick not just the skin around it.
[+][deleted] -19 points-18 points-17 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
When a female is "circumcized" they literally split the clit in half so that it is unpleaseurable for women to have sex. It is used in some cultures so that women only have sex for procreation reasons. Thats why they called it mutilation, where as with men, it makes sex actually better feeling, sensation wise, than someone who is uncircumcized.
[–]hydroxylacid 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
How does having the foreskin removed make sex better for men? Or did you mean that it makes sex better for the mans partner?
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Women think it makes penises prettier. So they will fight tooth and nail to inflict this upon men.
If it were about anything else, they wouldn't care if men cared about male circumcision. They would focus on FGM and let us do our thing. But they don't do that, because as I said, even feminist women consider the aesthetic value they get from a circumcised penis to be more important than a man's pleasure of piece of mind.
[–]Lugonn 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
There is so much wrong with this post I can't even begin to address it.
[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcison I may have been wrong about them slicing it down the middle, but it is mutilation, they completely remove the clitoris to, "decrease a womans sex drive."
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Wikipedia is not a valid source on controversial matters, particularly if they have a gender component. Wikipedia's Project: Feminism has introduced a truly massive level of ideological bias.
What you describe is extremely rare. It is no more common than the accidental removal of the glans or full stem during male circumcision.
You have no argument. You lie and you shill. You cite biases sources that are not generally considered valid citations outside of highschool. Why do you think people might not be taking you seriously? All you do is yell and pound the table.
[+][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I am yelling and pounding the table? Don't think so bud, I was just stating my opinion, and how silly of me to do that on Reddit..I thought this was a site were people could have discussions, not be brow beaten by people who have nothing better to do with their day than eat tiny bald babies.
[–]aPseudonymPho 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Ad hominem doesn't make what /u/eatstinybaldbabies false, just makes you look like a bigger clown
[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I have a different opinion about circumcision, maybe it doesn't agree with you. I am a men's right activist, but I don't think we should take everything and make it seem like we are being oppressed.
It has nothing to do with "being oppressed". It has to do with a cut and dry example of discriminate treatment of a human rights issue, and the lack of attention that it receives. I don't think circumcision is an example of oppression. I think it is an example of money influencing and driving a poor medical practice, bad science, and ignorance, which culminate into a violation of the individual human rights of the people subjected to it.
I don't really care that you have a different opinion about it, because the fact of the matter is, everyone else in the world except North America has an opinion that runs counter to what yours is. The only reason you so blindly follow your "opinion" is because where you live, that is the status quo.
This is no different from how women in Africa get their daughters mutilated, and are happy about it and defend it as much as possible. How those women grow up, and tell everyone around them that they're perfectly fine, they lead satisfactory and enjoyable lives, think its cleaner, and love the aesthetic. Your opinion is no different, nor is the place it came from. Cultural and societal pressures of your home country.
Yeah sure, the major Medical organization of America endorses the procedure, but maybe you should be asking yourself why every single other major first world medical organization runs 100% in opposition of the AAP and it's affiliates, instead of finding reasons why your position might be correct.
[–]Azrael-sama 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
And? Male circumcision took root in America for the purpose of decreasing a man's sex drive, and only persists because it became a norm which people will go to great lengths to continue to rationalize, and because it makes hospitals a lot of money.
[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Cool story bro, I take it you are not. I am, and much prefer it. Obviously I have nothing to compare it to, but my buddy says it makes aiming when you pee a little more dificult. Also it's kind of a cleanliness issue, and at 200$ for a newborn, I will definitily be getting any child I ever have circumcised, if they're male of course.
[–]Azrael-sama 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Cool story bro, I take it you are not.
You take it wrong. I am cut, and I do not prefer it. This subject would draw total apathy from me if I wasn't. But I guess that ain't as cool of a story for you, huh.
Also it's kind of a cleanliness issue
Five fucking seconds to use water on it, man. Women don't cut all their junk off to make it easier to clean, why should we?
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
They actually almost never do that. Most women who have undergone this procedure receive nothing more than a slight nick on the clitoris or the removal of the clitoral hood, neither of which is more traumatic physically or mentally than male circumcision. Indeed, removing the clitoral hood is the same exact thing as removing the foreskin.
The procedure you believe to make up the majority of FGM cases is extremely rare. It almost never happens. That isn't to say that it's a problem, but it does say that most FGM numbers are wildly misleading.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]MiracleRiver 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]colorcodebot 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]HigglyBumps 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mads-80 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MiracleRiver 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Disproving_Negatives 2 points3 points4 points (60 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 11 points12 points13 points (54 children) | Copy Link
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Disproving_Negatives 3 points4 points5 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]femdelusion 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]aPseudonymPho 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Kuato2012 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]aPseudonymPho 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -19 points-18 points-17 points (42 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eulabeia 10 points11 points12 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]hydroxylacid -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Azrael-sama 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eulabeia 9 points10 points11 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nwz123 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]nwz123 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]kurokabau 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]linearThinker 4 points5 points6 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]linearThinker 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]linearThinker 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]linearThinker 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]linearThinker 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 3 points4 points5 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -21 points-20 points-19 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]Eulabeia 14 points15 points16 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 2 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -11 points-10 points-9 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig 6 points7 points8 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThePigman -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]nwz123 -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]hydroxylacid 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (2 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]hydroxylacid 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]rawbface 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]rawbface -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]The_4th_Little_Pig 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -19 points-18 points-17 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]hydroxylacid 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lugonn 8 points9 points10 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]aPseudonymPho 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]aPseudonymPho 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Azrael-sama 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Azrael-sama 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link