|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Circumcision vs FGM - the ethics?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would rather not tangent (one of my frailties) on such a thread, but I would note that one of my militia friends tells me that the wise hussar always carries a pack of condoms on forest exercises so that, if it rains, the barrel of her firearm can be kept dry. *end of tangent*
I assume the lubricated ones are contraindicated, as well as the glow-in-the-dark ones, but ribbing doesn't matter one way or the other.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would rather not tangent (one of my frailties) on such a thread, but I would note that one of my militia friends tells me that the wise hussar always carries a pack of condoms on forest exercises so that, if it rains, the barrel of her firearm can be kept dry. *end of tangent*
I assume the lubricated ones are contraindicated, as well as the glow-in-the-dark ones, but ribbing doesn't matter one way or the other.
Some years ago, a colleague who had been sent to the Far East during the Second World War told me the same thing.
He was issued with a pack of three, and in his youthful naivety wondered what sort of a war he was being sent too!! It was quickly explained that they were for use over gun barrels in swamps.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Continuing tangent //
When I was a Girl Guide, in the 1980s, a condom was an essential part of our "first-aid kit in a tobacco tin." With the end snipped off, they can be used to give a bit of support to a sprained wrist or ankle, they can cover and keep a grazed limb clean, and they can be rolled over cotton wool to keep a dressing in place. We were told they can also hold a pint of water. I can confirm, from personal experience, that a condom rolled over a wrist does give support without restricting movement.
// End tangent.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In summary: infant circumcision as practiced by Jews is unproblematic for the health of the child, if not beneficial. Muslims should be encouraged to circumcise their children early in life, since negative outcomes increase with the age of circumcision. There currently is no evidence that early circumcision is detrimental to adult health or sex life, and the precise effects of removing the foreskin even in adults remain unclear.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
I agree with Ingob, and I'm sorry my last post went off too soon. I won't repeat the quotation from Ingob.
My apologies if all these points have been made before. I am conscious that some of them have. but being a latecomer to this thread I’m afraid I have not read every word of the 324 contributions to it. I am in favour of the circumcision of boys at the age of 8 days, but for medical, not for religious, reasons (though Moses or his successors had some good sense in their teaching, as for example in refraining from eating shellfish in a Mediterranean climate). My reasons are several:
1. I was circumcised, presumably at or about 8 days, and have been grateful to my parents since I was an adult.
2. About half the boys at my strictly Anglican boarding schools, who were born in the 1920s or 1930s, were circumcised. None of them ever discussed it, at any rate with me or in my hearing. It was commonplace and not a matter for remark, except I think I remember one reference to Roundheads and Cavaliers without any particular criticism of either. Certainly I never heard any of the Roundheads express any regret on the point.
3. My four sons were circumcised on the 8th day at home in our bedroom, no anaesthetic being necessary. The mohel (better than a non-Jewish doctor as he is likely to have more experience and training) was efficient, his “equipment” was small and effective (a flat piece of steel, perhaps 3" x 6", with a narrow slit for half its length, plus a surgically sharp knife), and he supplied some kind of orange powder to dress the cut, presumably to guard against infection - no other dressing was necessary. The boys may have made a small cry for a short time, though I don’t in fact remember their doing so. As they were, of course, wearing nappies there was no special care needed in dressing the place afterwards. I believe (though I have no medical training) that the nerves are not in all respects fully developed at 8 days, and that if the boys suffered any pain at all it was slight and did not last any length of time. Certainly they gave no sign of suffering pain after, perhaps, the first minute or two. No anaesthetic was necessary at that age. The boys are now aged 49-55 and we have not discussed circumcision; but three of them had their sons circumcised and one did not (I think his wife may have influenced the decision in that case).
5. I had a nephew who had to be circumcised for medical reasons at the age of 2. This was quite traumatic at the time for him, though I don’t think it has left any lasting adverse effects. I know of a young man who had an infection of the penis when he was some way from medical aid in tropical Africa, and was circumcised as a necessary part of the treatment when he got medical advice. Not surprisingly he wishes he had been circumcised in the normal way at 8 days.
6. The medical reasons are all in favour of circumcision. Phimosis (narrowing of the foreskin) affects 1% to 1.5% of boys by the time they are 17: it causes pain and sometimes bleeding, and circumcision is recommended. Paraphimosis (unnatural retraction of the foreskin causing inflammation and severe pain) is unpleasant, and circumcision may be required if the foreskin remains unduly tight. Acute balanoposthitis (swelling and discharge of pus) affects between 3% and 10% of uncircumcised boys: cicrcumcision is recommended for boys with recurrent occurrences. Penile cancer is rare, but commoner in uncircumcised men. Sexually transmitted disease (including syphilis) is more common in uncircumcised men. The balance of evidence, particularly from Sub-Saharan Africa, is that circumcision substantially reduces the risk of HIV - this seems common sense, since the glans of a circumcised man is more exposed to the elements and to one’s underpants etc and therefore develops a tougher skin which is less likely to crack and admit the HIV virus than a penis which is normally covered by the foreskin. 1 in 100 uncircumcised infants will develop a urinary tract infection, as opposed to 1 in 1000 circumcised infants. Apart from specific diseases, it seems to me obvious that there is more scope for dirt and infection to accumulate within the foreskin in an uncircumcised boy or man, a possibility that does not exist for the circumcised.
7. From the woman’s point of view, in addition to the protection against HIV, there is evidence that suggests that cervical cancer is less common among Jewish women, the best explanation being that their husbands or partners are more likely to be circumcised. .The Times medical correspondent, an experienced doctor, had a number of prostitutes among his clients. He carried out an informal survey a few years ago, and found that over 90% of them said they got more sexual pleasure from a circumcised partner than an uncircumcised.
8. The argument that the decision whether to be circumcised should be left to the child when he has attained the age of discretion is nonsense: he cannot at that age go back to the ideal time for circumcision, on the 8th day after he was born, and an operation at the age of 18 or older is of a totally different character.. The argument that circumcision is an assault on the child is equally applicable to vaccination or inoculation, whether routine or for travel to foreign parts. The decision is that of the parents, and they are entitled to take such action as they believe, on reasonable grounds, will be medically best for their child.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
An interesting article from the Mail & Guardian in South Africa - it seems generally accepted that circumcision has benefits in preventing HIV transmission.
A couple of devices are in the process of final mass testing that perform a non-surgical circumcision (ideal in remote areas where sterile surgical conditions are difficult and skilled medical staff are scarce). Analgesic ointment can be used instead of a local anasthetic, so no need for needles. It can be fitted in a (OK, slightly long!) lunchtime and requires no time off work.
So infant circumcision seems unneccessary on the grounds 'you might need it later on and then it will be far more painful'.
M&G article is here
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Penile cancer is rare, but commoner in uncircumcised men.....there is evidence that suggests that cervical cancer is less common among Jewish women, the best explanation being that their husbands or partners are more likely to be circumcised.
Circumcision is unnecessary for those reasons. Washing behind the foreskin to remove smegma is all that is necessary.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't think the evidence is good for the link with smegma, and cervical cancer is now thought to have much more to do with human papilloma virus, which circumcision protects men from and therefore protects the women they have sex with from acquiring it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
One of the effects of the anti-circumcision movement in Ontario is that very soon, just as girls of a certain age are required to receive a vacination against the human papilloma virus, so soon will boys of a certain age. The motive is to protect those girls/women with whom they have sex at some point in their lives.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
One of the effects of the anti-circumcision movement in Ontario is that very soon, just as girls of a certain age are required to receive a vacination against the human papilloma virus, so soon will boys of a certain age. The motive is to protect those girls/women with whom they have sex at some point in their lives.
John
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Ontario delisted circumcision in 1994. Even before then it was never universal. Nova Scotia's circumcision rate is almost non-existent, as is Newfoundland's.
There's no link in your argument, John, and no evidence of a link. Further, surgery is not a reliable or effective way to reduce infections, which are an immune problem. If circumcision's health benefits wrt HPV were subject to the same criteria as a vaccine, it would be dismissed as ineffective and harmful.
Second, I can't even find any websites on linking HPV and circumcision in Ontario, not even a campaign website of marginal scientific value.
Third, the Canadian Paediatric Society (the professional association) states infant circumcision is not a therapeutic procedure, it is not medically necessary and should not be routinely performed. (will get citations if requested).
It looks to me John like you just pulled a rabbit out of your hat.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Nope.
Newspaper reports some months ago noted that health authorities will be moving to compulsory vacciantion of boys in parallel with the existing vaccination of girls for HPV.
The increase in concern about male infection and transmission of HPV runs in parallel with the decrease in circumcision...noting that the age range targetted is of boys who were, or were not, circumcised from 15-16 years ago and since.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Further, surgery is not a reliable or effective way to reduce infections, which are an immune problem. If circumcision's health benefits wrt HPV were subject to the same criteria as a vaccine, it would be dismissed as ineffective and harmful.
Circumcision is about 30% effective. That is very much less effective than the HPV vaccine (90% plus) but it is better than ineffective.
A vaccine that provided 30% protection wouldn't be off to a great start, but if there wasn't anything else that was protective it would be a potential candidate for a license.
I agree with you that circumcision isn't recommendable simply on the basis of protection against HPV, but I don't think it's quite as open and shut a case as you make out. And for folks who already have a cultural bias towards it it's reasonable to add that to all the other medical benefits discussed upthread.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
Those who are dismissing the parallel with piercing girls' ears at a few weeks of age are I think making the two procedures sound too dissimilar. I agree that circumcision is more drastic, but it is very common for a girl whose ears were pierced as a baby to never have the holes close up, even if she doesn't wear earrings. And it is (much more than tattoos, body piercings as an adult et al.) done to make girls appear similar to their peers.
My nieces live in a country where I'd estimate 90% of girls have theirs pierced under 1 year of age (certainly under 5 years) while in the UK it is very uncommon to pierce a girl's ears until she is old enough to ask for it. The rationalisation where they live (and in families who do it in the UK, which are often those of certain ethnicities) is that they won't remember it and they will want it done anyway as everyone gets it done. Sounds a lot like some of the arguments made for circumcision at an early age.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
Sounds a lot like some of the arguments made for circumcision at an early age.
Except there's no religious angle. Jewish parents don't have their sons circumcised just so they'll look like the other boys.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Nope.
Newspaper reports some months ago noted that health authorities will be moving to compulsory vacciantion of boys in parallel with the existing vaccination of girls for HPV.
The increase in concern about male infection and transmission of HPV runs in parallel with the decrease in circumcision...noting that the age range targetted is of boys who were, or were not, circumcised from 15-16 years ago and since.
John
Given the marginal effectiveness of circumcision as an HPV preventative, they'd recommend vaccinating everyone anyway. By way of the same thinking, Ontario used to only give one measles vaccine. The world standard had increased to two some years prior, but Ontario held out. Then they made the decision to move to a two-shot standard. Everyone in my high school had to be done. We all had the one-shot standard, you can't get into school in Ontario otherwise, but had to have a catch-up all the same.
Further, all provinces of Canada have delisted routine infant circumcision from their provincial plans, it wasn't done at the behest of activists in Ontario, it was done on the basis of medical evidence that OHIP would not cover a procedure without clear medical benefits and which was essentially cosmetic surgery. It was evidence-based decision made by the senior public servants of the Ontario Ministry of Health.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
SPK, while you are right that the efficacy of circumcision against HPV is limited and couldn't replace vaccination, it is a little dispiriting to read you saying that there is no evidence of medical benefits of circumcision given the extensive discussion and referencing up thread.
It might be true that many respected institutions have taken considered decisions that the medical benefits don't outweigh the risks and justify routine practice of circumcision, but to say there aren't clear medical benefits is a gross simplification.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
Sounds a lot like some of the arguments made for circumcision at an early age.
Except there's no religious angle. Jewish parents don't have their sons circumcised just so they'll look like the other boys.
No, you're right, they don't - but a lot of US non-Jewish baby boys are circumcised so they look like the other boys (though some parents will debate the medical aspects, for others it is this simple). And in some ethnic communities ear piercing is a matter of cultural tradition, bordering on religion - it marks you out as a member of that community in some areas. It's massively more common in some ethnic communities than others in the UK, for example.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
Ok, going back to the original thread title, i.e. back to its second topic so quickly dismissed. It risks to comp
quote:
Originally posted by every other poster:
FGM is a VERY different thing to male circumcision.
This has become a commonplace statement, often uttered in the way of a public confession, whereby putting it at the start of one's contribution signals correct-party affiliation. Things are, however, not as simple as they appear.
There are regional differences in female circumcision/FGM. The cruel practice of infibulation, cutting away of clitoris and/or inner and outer labia and sewing it all up, which we mostly have in mind is not the only form. This was first pointed out to me by a missionary some years ago. I met her when she had been a living with the Maassai in Tanzania for 20 years. According to her the practice of female circumcision there leaves only a relatively little trace and does not fundamentally differ from male circumcision. Both, she claimed, involved cutting away a small portion of a highly sensitive body part. This colleague was often wildly attacked for even suggesting that there are relevant differences within FGM (or female circumcision as she did indeed call it). She saw herself as standing up against outsiders' vilification of Maassai culture (She saw it as racist. "Jews get away with it because they are white - the Maassai are only negroes, so nobody bothers to look and distinguish between their customs and other African peoples'"). This is the anecdotal evidence that I had almost forgotten about but that came to me when the current debate here flared up.
Indeed in Germany this aspect is now brought up. According to Islam's Shafiite Law School circumcision of boys and girls is a religious prescript, not just a cultural tradition (The usual question: Who is allowed to define the difference? A European court or the religious group in question?). Female circumcision here means the cutting away of the clitoris' foreskin, even tinier than a boy's. The operation is apparently regularly (and illegally) performed by doctors in Germany. This link is in German but maybe some of you can read it. The clitoris foreskin is #1 in the drawing. In practice the procedure appears riskier than male circumcision but it is hard to define an absolute difference. The risk would be reduced if the procedure were legal and did not have to be performed clandestinely as now.
In Egypt the practice seems to be gaining ground again. Already when the al-Azhar University in Cairo under Sheikh Tantawi passed an anti-FGM fatwa (cf alsoalso here), it was widely rejected by shafiite Clerics who saw it as the makings of Suzanne Mubarak. Since Mubarak's fall the fatwa has lost even more importance.
The German article above (first link) points out that if German parliament - as it now plans - passes a law to legalise boys' circumcision, then Shafiite clerics in Germany will claim equal rights for their own religious tradition (and ironically possibly even argue with gender equality) to demand that girls' circumcision in their "mild" or "medicalised" form be covered by the same law.
Possibly the only way to avoid this legal dilemma would be to distinguish in more detail between Jewish and Muslim circumcision. For Muslims it would be legally possible to set a relatively high minimum age - for boys and girls. Only for Jews would infant circumcision be legalised.
In any case it would still be strange that in Germany it is illegal to even slap your child - but ok to have a part of its penis cut off.
Btw: For those arguing that men do not complain about having been circumcised, the same may be true for (some? many? most?) women.
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The Maasai often practice clitoridectomy which is substantially more mutilating than your description.
Although it clearly is true that there are variations in practice throughout Africa, and there are some groups who seem to be less mutilating than others. Somali practices seem to be among the worst, and Kikuyu among the least extensive. But there often seems to be variation within groups, because the practice is of course not regulated and the women doing it are not trained.
I think there is no comparison with male circumcision because there is no practice within male circumcision of some groups chopping into the glans, removing a variable amount of penis, or slicing off the testes. It is inaccurate to refer to circumcision as chopping off "part of the penis". I don't think it is practical to remove something analogous to foreskin from around the clitoris, and I don't no of any such cultural practice that tries to achieve this.
That there are religious groups who support female circumcision is not relevant. There are religious groups who support all manner of wrong, and if the practice is considered abusive then it can be made illegal and this can be enforced. There is no "hands off" tag attached to religious practice when it amounts to child abuse.
[ 06. August 2012, 20:41: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is inaccurate to refer to circumcision as chopping off "part of the penis".
Well it's not part of the foot. What the fuck is it part of if not the penis? Good grief! This is insane.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I just think that "part of the penis" sounds a lot worse than removing foreskin.
Like referring to having your toenail removed as chopping off "part of the foot". Well it's not part of the penis is it.
Sorry it sounds insane to you.
[ 07. August 2012, 07:14: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is like describing losing a bit of your earlobe as missing a bit of your head though - somewhat misleading proportionately.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The foreskin is very much part of the penis. it is not an 'extra' like a toenail.
Well speaking for myself my toenail is very much part of my foot. I'd view it more as a "fitted as standard" sort of thing rather than an optional extra.
I'm not sure how when distinguishes between being an "extra" and being part of. It sounds like a value judgement to me.
I agree with Think, my objection is to the disproportionate impression created by "part of the penis" as a description for circumcision.
[ 07. August 2012, 11:56: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think it is practical to remove something analogous to foreskin from around the clitoris, and I don't no of any such cultural practice that tries to achieve this.
This is precisely the practice which the article I linked to, describes and for which it points out the legal implications. Of course it is possible to remove a tiny body part even around the clitoris. As it is done on older girls, it would be not much smaller than an infant boy's foreskin.
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I just think that "part of the penis" sounds a lot worse than removing foreskin.
Like referring to having your toenail removed as chopping off "part of the foot". Well it's not part of the penis is it.
Sorry it sounds insane to you.
As has already been pointed out the foreskin is part of the penis.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
... I think there is no comparison with male circumcision because there is no practice within male circumcision of some groups chopping into the glans, removing a variable amount of penis, or slicing off the testes. ... That there are religious groups who support female circumcision is not relevant. ...
The reasons for male or female circumcision are also vastly different. Males are circumcised to mark their membership in a religious group, or for (arguable) health benefits. Women are circumcised to reduce or eliminate their sexual pleasure, to increase the pain of intercourse, particularly the first time, and to make women more chaste. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
This is a simple repetition of the doctrinally correct. But the example given above is exactly contradicting what you say.
According to those who practice this form of female circumcision (Shafi'i Muslims), it exactly parallels male circumcision:
a) a small bit of skin called "foreskin" is removed around the clitoris, it does not involve cutting away labia, clitoris and sewing it all up
b) it does not affect sexual pleasure
c) it is a religious requirement, not a can-or-cannot-do
So they will - should a law permitting male circumcision be passed - probably claim that what is legal for boys should also be legal for girls.
The fact that other people grossly mutilate girls is utterly irrelevant for judging what this group does. They will, rightly, claim to be judged on their own merits, not other people's.
So the question remains: Should one pass a law allowing circumcision of boys if this means running the risk that the same law will be invoked to circumcise girls in the described fashion?
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I just think that "part of the penis" sounds a lot worse than removing foreskin.
It rather doesn't matter how bad it sounds. Sounding good is not a criteria for determining body parts.
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
It is like describing losing a bit of your earlobe as missing a bit of your head though - somewhat misleading proportionately.
No, it's like describing a losing a bit of your earlobe as missing a bit of your ear. Which is perfectly accurate.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As has already been pointed out the foreskin is part of the penis.
And so is a toenail part of your foot, but simply saying in unqualified fashion "he's chopping of part of my foot" would give the wrong impression.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It rather doesn't matter how bad it sounds. Sounding good is not a criteria for determining body parts.
It wasn't my criteria for determining body parts, it was my criteria for the importance of giving the correct impression. An unqualified "removing part of the penis" to me gives the impression of substantially more extensive cutting than simply removing the foreskin.
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
This is a simple repetition of the doctrinally correct. But the example given above is exactly contradicting what you say.
According to those who practice this form of female circumcision (Shafi'i Muslims), it exactly parallels male circumcision
I'm not sure I believe that they can reproducibly do such an accurate excision. What is described elsewhere as a minor procedure often ends up being more extensive in practice and less well done. The clitoral hood is much smaller than the foreskin, and more difficult to operate on. They also represent an extreme minority view on what is Islamic practice, and I don't think the law on male circumcision would oblige the law to follow such a minority view.
In fact we currently have a situation where female circumcision is illegal but male circumcision is legal across most of Europe, but the pressure to legalise female circumcision seems very slight and easily resisted. This might be more of an argument if both forms were currently legal, and it was proposed to change the status quo and legalise male but not female circumcision. However, the debate is about making male circumcision illegal, and I think it isn't credible to argue that female circumcision is about to be legalized if we don't criminalize male circumcision.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
An unqualified "removing part of the penis" to me gives the impression of substantially more extensive cutting than simply removing the foreskin.
Gives to whom? People who don't consider the foreskin part of the penis? Anybody who can't stomach the fact that male circumcision is, in fact, cutting off part of the penis, perhaps ought to reexamine their beliefs about circumcision, just as anybody who can't stand the thought that they are eating cow or pig should reexamine their thoughts about carnophagy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Well if we had the same conversation about someone cutting off "part of my foot" vs "my toenail" would you feel the same?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well if we had the same conversation about someone cutting off "part of my foot" vs "my toenail" would you feel the same?
One might perhaps point out that a nail will regrow. I don't think it's really analogous with cutting off the foreskin.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is this thread still going on? Jeez!
It seems to have hit "dead horse" territory loooong ago in my book.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well if we had the same conversation about someone cutting off "part of my foot" vs "my toenail" would you feel the same?
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
One might perhaps point out that a nail will regrow. I don't think it's really analogous with cutting off the foreskin.
Of course it's not analogous, but in terms of determining whether a particular anatomical structure is part of something else whether it regrows or not is irrelevant. I'm saying it is technically correct to call the foreskin part of the penis, just as it is technically correct to call a toenail part of the foot.
But dropping the qualification for the precise part makes a different impression. To me anyway.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I think it's rather like bobbing the tails of some breeds of doggies. Actually that always scared me -- too evocative of castration.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You don't "cut off" your toenail. Having lost a toenail, I can tell you that trimming the end of your toenail and having your toenail "cut off" are quite different things. None of which has anything to do with whether or not the foreskin is part of the penis.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
When you lost your toenail would you have said you'd lost "part of your foot"?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
A man comparing his toenails to his foreskin must lead either an extremely pleasurable or a very sheltered life ...
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
@mdijon
If you really want to keep forcing this comparison then maybe change toenail to the skin of the toe?
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm not forcing it as a comparison except with regard to making a single point about "part of" vs using a precise word already available in the language.
So for me "skin of big toe" vs "part of my foot" works to make the same point as well. Someone who described their injury in an insurance claims form as losing "part of their foot" when they'd lost skin off their big toe would be technically correct, but perhaps trying to over-egg the impression gained regarding their injury.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What percent of your average penis is the foreskin, say by weight, when flaccid?
What percent of your average foot is the skin from one toe?
Not in the same ballpark.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Wiki has entire article on human penis size - oddly it doesn't concentrate on weight, I am not entirely sure how you'd get the information needed to evaluate your comparison.
This is the only study they cite mentioning weight - but it is behind a pay wall.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What percent of your average penis is the foreskin, say by weight, when flaccid?
What percent of your average foot is the skin from one toe?
Would it surprise you to learn I don't have accurate figures to hand?
It seems to me that even if the comparison were off by an order of magnitude, the principle is nevertheless demonstrated that describing something as "part of" rather than it's precise limits can be misleading, even if technically correct.
What part of the foot would you use in the illustration mousethief?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Here is a random link about what happens to circumcised foreskins. I believe it was produced in a fit of outrage - but it is also another way of thinking about medical benefit.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
There are at least 8 bottled/ preserved/ revered foreskins of the Baby Jesus scattered around the globe too!
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As a matter of curiosity, does any shipmate know whether East-of-Orthodox Christians, like Copts, Ethiopians or Assyrians practice circumcision or FGM of any sort?
If they do, that would imply it is a social custom embedded in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. If they don't, and particularly if they take the line this is something that distinguishes them from the Moslems and Jews that surround them, that would imply that it is specifically a religious custom.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Ethiopian Orthodox Christians and most Kenyan Christians (depending on tribe) practice circumcision, but as far as I know this isn't performed in a religious context.
However, the fact that some Africans practice circumcision on a cultural basis does not mean that some other Africans don't practice circumcision on a religious basis.
For instance, culturally practiced circumcision in Kenya tends to be done in early teenage years, but the perceived Islamic custom is to circumcise babies.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What part of the foot would you use in the illustration mousethief?
In what illustration?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
