Male Genital Mutilation

[Pedersen]

I recommend watching the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on circumcision.

Perhaps you could at least summarize what they said?

In female circumcision, don't they also sew up the female parts after, or is that just scaremongering? They don't do that in the case of male circumcision.

That depends on the type of FGM that is done. The most extreme types do, but there is at least one type that is a direct corollary to male circumcision.

the CDC only has US data-not worldwide directly from the CDC

I stand corrected. So, change the numbers a bit. It is now 1 in 10 men, assuming that all HPV carriers are male. If it's only 1/2, then it's about 1 in 20. Of course, there is something else I find interesting:

thus far there is no diagnostic test that can accurately determine whether a man is carrying an HPV infection.

So, you would advocate mutilating every male to provide an uncertain amount of benefit to reduce transmission of a virus that cannot even be detected in the men?

I do hope, then, that you would advocate female circumcision, as this has a benefit in reduction of HIV transmission (by 50%). Or did you refuse to answer that question deliberately?

Guardasil is only for those under 27 years of age-age of highest diagnosis for cervical cancer-48

Dang. Too bad. I guess that, unlike most vaccines, once you turn 27, it stops working for you.

Wait, you didn't mean that? Then how is it relevant? Gardasil has proven benefits right now. It can be used right now to protect people, and usage of the vaccine can allow us to not mutilate people for the benefit of others.

Now, I would hope that you would agree that a man should be as able to decide what happens to his body as a woman should. You do believe that people should be able to decide what happens with their own bodies, don't you?

[BlaqueKatt]

Let's be generous, and assume that all 20,000,000 HPV carriers are male. This means that (using the NYT numbers) that 15,000,000 uncircumcised males are carriers, and 5,000,000 circumcised males are carriers. Going back to our worldwide population, a woman would have to have sex with 200 uncircumcised males, or 600 circumcised males, to find one carrier of HPV.

the CDC only has US data-not worldwide directly from the CDC

At any one time, an estimated 20 million people in the United States have genital HPV infections that can be transmitted to others. Every year, about 5.5 million people acquire a genital HPV infection.

from this article:
According to an article published in 1997 in the American Journal of Medicine, about 74 percent of Americans--nearly three out of four--have been infected with genital HPV at some point in their lives.

that kinda blows your 1 in 200 out of the water.

Among those ages 15-49, only one in four Americans has not had a genital HPV infection.

thus far there is no diagnostic test that can accurately determine whether a man is carrying an HPV infection.

And, let's not forget Gardasil, a vaccine for many strains of HPV, which further reduces the risk.

Guardasil is only for those under 27 years of age-age of highest diagnosis for cervical cancer-48

common myths about cervical cancer

About 9,700 women in the United States will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year. It may seem like a small number, until you consider that another 1.2 million women will develop a pre-cancerous condition called dysplasia. And if left untreated, dysplasia will become cervical cancer.


Dysplasia is usually caused by HPV

[Lace Neil Singer]

In female circumcision, don't they also sew up the female parts after, or is that just scaremongering? They don't do that in the case of male circumcision.

Just wanted clarification.

[Pedersen]

tonsils???

oh the other side of the fence, slytovhand brings up a good point, we still remove tonsils to reduce the chance of an infection that is very minor... and we don't hear anyone complaining about it.

Actually, tonsillectomy is performed with specific medical reasons. Here is the list of criteria that is applied to determine if a person should have a tonsillectomy.

Per that list, tonsillectomy is only done after a person has shown that a significant benefit would be gained to the quality of life for that person.

So, no, tonsils are not a valid counterpoint to saying that circumcision (of any sort) should be allowed at will.

[smileyeagle1021]

Fair enough. Will you accept the information from the World Health Organization?

yes, that will work.

oh and yes, that is the question I want to ask (like I said, I don't agree with it). It may even help your argument when people have to justify both female circumcision as well as male.

tonsils???

oh the other side of the fence, slytovhand brings up a good point, we still remove tonsils to reduce the chance of an infection that is very minor... and we don't hear anyone complaining about it.

[Slytovhand]

tonsils???

[Lachrymose]

I recommend watching the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on circumcision.

It's available to watch for about 2 dollars on Amazon Unbox. Or you can find it somewhere else yourself.

[Pedersen]

Pederson, do you have anything other than wikipedia to site on the definition of female genital mutilation. I believe you when you posted that, but if my professors won't accept information cited from wikipedia, then I'll be skeptical too.

Fair enough. Will you accept the information from the World Health Organization?

BTW, I followed the external links from Wikipedia to get there.

But is female circumcision that bad?

Is the unnecessary removal of a perfectly functioning piece of the body without some other strong medical reason a bad idea, along with the attendant pain, any potential psychological trauma (especially if done after infancy)?

Is that the question you really want to ask?

[smileyeagle1021]

Pederson, do you have anything other than wikipedia to site on the definition of female genital mutilation. I believe you when you posted that, but if my professors won't accept information cited from wikipedia, then I'll be skeptical too.

Also, 3 pages in I can't believe no one has asked it.

But is female circumcision that bad? With the limited knowledge I have on the topic I think it is wrong, but with us asking about male circumcision and a large number of people (as is apparent by the large number of males who are circumsized), maybe it could be asked if maybe that isn't the way to go and should be done on females as well. Just playing devils advocate.

[the_std]

I don't care that much what others think about my hypothetical child rearing practices. If I were to have a boy, then I would demand that he be circumcised.

Just wondering... If you don't care what others think about your preferences, why post them in a debate forum? Your post would have been complete without this last piece of information.

[Pedersen]

I really wish aniti-circumcision people would stop comparing it to female genital mutilation.

And I wish that people would actually learn the definition of female genital mutilation.

Here, let me give you a place to read about it: Wikipedia

Removal of the clitoris is comparable to removal of the first half of the penis. Circumcision is comparable to removal of the clitoral hood. Such a big difference that comparing the procedures makes those people look silly. It makes me and most other potential listeners tune out.

Female Genital Mutilation, Type Ia:

removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only

Per Wikipedia article:

Federal law prohibiting FGC was enacted in 1996. 17 states enacted similar laws between 1994 and 2006.

Per MGM Bill's FAQ

In the United States today, all forms of child female circumcision are prohibited under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

Per Title 18, USC:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is--

(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or

(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.

All types of female genital mutilation on underage females are illegal. Why isn't the same true for males?

I don't care that much what others think about my hypothetical child rearing practices. If I were to have a boy, then I would demand that he be circumcised.

Then I pity your son, and wish that you never have one, so that he will be protected from you and your selfish ways.

[smileyeagle1021]

thank you flyndaran for pointing that out... that is something I was not aware of.

[Flyndaran]

I really wish aniti-circumcision people would stop comparing it to female genital mutilation.
Removal of the clitoris is comparable to removal of the first half of the penis. Circumcision is comparable to removal of the clitoral hood. Such a big difference that comparing the procedures makes those people look silly. It makes me and most other potential listeners tune out.

I don't care that much what others think about my hypothetical child rearing practices. If I were to have a boy, then I would demand that he be circumcised.

[Slytovhand]

Ear piercing is one of the lesser body modifications that can be done (and, by my understanding, is completely reversible with just some time for things to heal), and I still disagree with forcing it. Making changes to someone else's body is just wrong.

Well - depends on your beliefs... in chinese medicine, there are a stack of acupuncture points in the ears.. put a hole through one, and you change the energy flows...

As for your OP, I'm all with you on this one... (is that a first?? ... well, no but...) I'm thinking now, from this, to start up a new, and far more controversial, thread.

[Pedersen]

is that enough reasons for you?
50% reduction in contraction of HIV, 30% reduction in transmission of HIV, and less chance you'll give your partner the virus that causes cervical cancer. All three are related to certain cells that are ONLY found in the foreskin.

Ah, just found something else for you to ponder, BlaqueKatt. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Seems that female circumcision helps to reduce transmission of HIV. If this is a good enough reason to circumcise males, I expect you're going to now recommend the circumcision of females, too, right?

Well, you've convinced me.

I'm glad of that. Be careful, though: I have read reports of delivering doctors ignoring the wishes of the parents and performing the circumcision right after the birth. Make certain your doctor is in agreement with you.

A friend of mine confided in me that he was uncircumsized, because his mother had heard about the risks of circumcisions gone wrong, in which the doctors make a wrong cut and remove more than just the foreskin. At the time, I thought his mother vaguely paranoid, but better safe than sorry. This same friend had no intention of ever getting circumsized, either, though he just wanted to avoid the pain. He was teased in elementary and middle school for being different, I know, but he didn't let it bother him.

And that is, in my opinion, the right thing. He is making the choice about what to do with his body.

And I had completely forgotten to mention the possibility of complications. Excessive cutting, excessive bleeding, infection, all of these are possibilities. Admittedly, they are not likely possibilities, but they are possibilities. And the disturbing part, in my mind, is that parents voluntarily expose their child to these risks by actively doing something. How often is it that parents are able to reduce the risk for their child simply by not doing anything? And yet, here we are, debating whether or not parents should be allowed to remove a normally functioning body part from a healthy child.

In Puerto Rico the hospitals automatically circumsize the boys and pierce the girls' ears at birth. The way to tell a baby boy from a girl is to check for earrings. I've also intended to pierce my daughters' ears when they were babies, because all the women in my family have had pierced ears since birth and it's never bothered me. Now I wonder about that too...

I never knew that about Puerto Rico. And I'm definitely not fond of the "pierce the ears of the infant". Let the child actually ask for it. Ear piercing is one of the lesser body modifications that can be done (and, by my understanding, is completely reversible with just some time for things to heal), and I still disagree with forcing it. Making changes to someone else's body is just wrong.

And that's all I have to say about that. Well, in this thread, anyway.