(cache) treefinger1235 comments on Casually equating circumcision to female genital mutilation ~justneckbeardthings~

Casually equating circumcision to female genital mutilation ~justneckbeardthings~ (i.imgur.com)

submitted 14 時間前 by DerpyGrooves

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]treefinger1235 8 ポイント9 ポイント10 ポイント 14 時間前

固定リンク

[–]totes_meta_bot 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 2 時間前

[+]DerpyGrooves[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント (33 子コメント)

[–]walkonthebeach 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 6 時間前

The idea that it's in any way comparable to female genital mutilation is patently absurd

Wrong. And the peer-reviewed medical research shows you to be wrong.

You have spent too long in a society where the mutilation of infant male genitalia has become normalised. You need to start expanding your knowledge and learning the truth; and not uncritically accepting the FGM narrative.

FGM gives a 60% reduction in HIV infection, and many women report no ill-effects from having their genitals mutilated:

Note: I am against ALL genital mutilation of females, males and intersex. Please don't interpret this post as supporting any of these activities.

Everything I have posted below is factual; but it's supposed to be educational - to help folks clear up their confused thinking around this issue. Thanks

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

If the amputation of the mucus membranes of the male genitals results in a lowering of HIV infection; then it would not be unreasonable to assume that the amputation of the mucus membranes of the female genitals would produce the same effect. Indeed, as the total surface area of mucus membranes in females is so much greater than that of males, the effect may be even greater.

However, most western peoples will be repulsed by the idea of amputating parts of an infant female's genitals to obtain some future protection from a disease. All the more so, when nearly 100% protection can be obtain from HIV infection by use of condoms.

But this repulsion does not arise when the prospect of amputating parts of infant male genitals. This is clearly because such activity has become "normalised" in the west. This is the issue.

Like male circumcision, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show female circumcision is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect.

You'll often come across members of the medical community saying that FGM has no "health" benefits, and if women have their clitoris amputated, then their sex life comes to an end. Then they say that MGM has lots of "health" benefits and that men's sex life is not affected.

But it's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' circumcised. Plus there are many so-called potential "health benefits" - such as a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed. Thus she often can enjoy a full and satisfying sex life.

The truth about the female clitoris

Learn how large the female clitoris is; and how the external glans clitoris is just a small part of it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/sexuality/a/clitoraltruthin.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clitoral-Truth-Secret-Fingertips/dp/1583224734

Female Circumcision & Health Benefits

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."

Note: when it's found that circumcising female genitals reduces HIV/AIDS it's called a "conundrum" rather that a wonderfully exciting "medical" opportunity to reduces HIV/AIDS.

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

"Georgia State University, Public Health Theses" — a USA University of international renown:

The Association between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and the Risk of HIV/AIDS in Kenyan Girls and Women (15-49 Years):

"RESULTS: This study shows an inverse association (OR=0.508; 95% CI: 0.376-0.687) between FGM and HIV/AIDS, after adjusting for confounding variables."

"DISCUSSION: The inverse association between FGM and HIV/AIDS established in this study suggests a possible protective effect of female circumcision against HIV/AIDS. This finding suggests therefore the need to authenticate this inverse association in different populations and also to determine the mechanisms for the observed association."

"This study investigated whether there is a direct association between FGM and HIV/AIDS. Surprisingly, the results indicated that the practice of FGM turned out to reduce the risk of HIV. While a positive association was hypothesized, a surprising inverse association between cases of female circumcision and positive HIV serostatus was obtained, hence indicating that FGM may have protective properties against the transmission of HIV."

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses

"National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania - 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS in women who have have parts of the genitals amputated:"

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf

"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract

"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"The New Scientist" (references a medical journal)

Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ

"Journal of General Internal Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Female "Circumcision" - African Women Confront American Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497147/

Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi

http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528

"Pediatrics (AAP)" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:

Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/1/153.short

Genital Autonomy for all - Intersex, Male & Female

[–]treefinger1235 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 14 時間前

[+]DerpyGrooves[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント (21 子コメント)

[–]underswamp1008 12 ポイント13 ポイント14 ポイント 14 時間前*

I just don't understand people who loudly run their mouths clearly before even attempting to do any research.

Like, you haven't even tried.

I feel like this is common knowledge, but I'll say it again, just for you.

The foreskin has 3 major functions. It 1) contains thousands of nerve endings 2) mobilizes the skin of the penis, important for many aspects of sexuality and 3) protects the head of the penis, just as the clitoral hood protects the clitoris.

From your very own link

should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence

None of which are true for the US.

I hope you prove me wrong, but you seem to me to be the sort of person that pits women's right's/causes against men's. Many men on the other side are guilty of the same thing. Why? I see a lot of MRA vs feminist bickering and it achieves nothing. We should all be banding together to achieve the goal of human rights for all.

Blah, blah, blah, this is getting very kum-ba-yah. But anyway, using this issue as an example, why does it have to be an argument about which is worse. Why can only one of them be bad?

This is getting too long. tl;dr: oppose non-consensual genital cutting for all, regardless of sex.

[+]DerpyGrooves[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント (8 子コメント)

[–]underswamp1008 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 12 時間前

Well, by your omission of the issue, at least we can agree that the foreskin is not "a vestigial organ that provides no improvement to quality of life". Unfortunately, that was either a lie or speaking from ignorance, neither of which is acceptable.

Remember what I said about proving me wrong? Not that you probably care, but you're not doing a great job.

If the intactivists continue on their absurd crusade

Right, so completely aside from FGM, intactvists are still on an "absurd crusade"? Why is it absurd? Why do you feel the need to put down their cause? How is that productive? You're doing exactly what I was talking about. It's like...the "crabs in a bucket" effect of human rights.

One is a widely accepted and endorsed medical practice

Again, you won't find any medical organization that endorses routine male circumcision, which is the issue at hand. To make an obvious analogy, limb amputation is also a "widely accepted and endorsed medical practice"; the issues is when it's done unnecessarily and non-consensually.

It's OK. You can oppose male circumcision too. It won't take anything away from your dedication or value of the anti-FGM cause. There's no need to belittle it, ignore it, or try to spin the issue just to spite people you may not like who happen to be male.

Now, about FGM. You've got me doing exactly what I was just talking about. Well shit. Well, if we have to do this, well, it's just...complex. It's complex. We all know (hopefully) that there are different levels of FGC, some of which most reasonable people would say are less damaging than male circumcision. I could cite videos of women saying that they were happy with the procedure. I could cite, yes, studies showing that FGC can lower HIV infection rates. Studies showing that women that have experienced even the highest forms of cutting can still achieve orgasm. I could go on about how the origins of male and female circumcision bear overwhelming resemblance.

Et cetera, et cetera. But where would that get us in the end though, really? Bragging rights over an internet argument?

Again, I don't like my posts to get too long: We need to all get on the same side, as a united voice against all cutting of the genitals of children.

[+]DerpyGrooves[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント (6 子コメント)

[–]underswamp1008 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 11 時間前

No, trust me, it is a proper simplification of the issue. If we would all, on all sides, choose to support and help eachother with regard to to the genital cutting of boys and girls, instead of trying to tear each other down, the effect would be 100% positive for all parties involved, ultimately, the future generations of children, who this is actually about.

You may as well make an argument against vaccination "We need to all get on the same side. It's not okay to poke children with needles."

I will put this simply: Vaccinations have no long term detriments. Circumcision does. That is the difference.

And here you go again with the "which is worse" horseshit. I've already addressed everything you said. You really must not be reading my replies. It's complex. But let me make it simple for you.

Look, they are comparable. They are both non consentual cutting of children's genitals. They have similarities. If you want to get fucking technical about it there are certain forms of FGC that are less harmful than male circumcision, and there are others that are worse. Much worse. But the fucking point is that they are all harmful and need to end

Fuck dude.

I was going to link to an article showing potential HIV risk reduction for FGC, but fuck it. I'm not stooping to that level.

I'll educate you that male circumcision started for similar reasons as female cutting; they used to cut girls right alongside boys in the US. They wanted to decrease sex drive, cause pain, stop masturbation. In both sexes. Does that sound like "medicine"?

Circumcision, on the other hand, has provable benefits. Benefits you >seem unwilling to even consider. It seems strange that someone would >be happier dying of HIV than having to suffer a circumsized penis.

The US is a developed country and HIV is extremely rare.

A simple condom has a much, much, higher protection rate.

The study that you're quotung is, unfortunately, incredibly flawed, in the first place.

"Happier dying of HIV" -- stay away from hyperbole. The rest of the developed world does great without RIC. Guess which country actually has the highest HIV rate? You fucking guessed it. Good old US of A.

The choice should be left up to the individual.

[+]DerpyGrooves[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント (2 子コメント)

[–]DerpyGrooves[S] -6 ポイント-5 ポイント-4 ポイント 11 時間前

I will put this simply: Vaccinations have no long term detriments. Circumcision does. That is the difference.

From the WHO: "It is not known whether male circumcision changes the sensitivity of the penis, and if it does whether this has any adverse effect on male sexual pleasure. Research in this area is very dif- ficult to conduct and interpret. Some studies of circumcised men show that the penis is less sensitive to touch, while other studies show no effect. One study found a slightly longer ejacula- tion time in circumcised men.

Reports from men who have been circumcised as adults are conflicting; most men report im- proved or unchanged sex lives. Data recently published from the Rakai randomized controlled trial of male circumcision showed that circumcised men experienced no adverse effect on sex- ual functioning or satisfaction (Kigozi et al).

Sexual pleasure depends on a large range of factors, including age, alcohol consumption, fa- tigue, relationship dynamics and health conditions such as diabetes. Probably the most impor- tant factors are the feelings sexual partners have for each other and the time when and the place where they are having sexual relations."

And here you go again with the "which is worse" horseshit. I've already addressed everything you said. You really must not be reading my replies. It's complex. But let me make it simple for you.

Look, they are comparable. They are both non consentual cutting of children's genitals. They have similarities. If you want to get fucking technical about it there are certain forms of FGC that are less harmful than male circumcision, and there are others that are worse. Much worse. But the fucking point is that they are all harmful and need to end

From the WHO: "While both male and female circumcision are steeped in culture and tradition, the health conse- quences of each are substantially different. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a practice that should not be allowed to continue. WHO supports communities in their efforts to abandon the practice and to improve care for those who have undergone FGM. WHO has also made clear the need to steadfastly resist the medicalization of FGM.

Male circumcision may seem similar to FGM as far as its definition is concerned – “partial ... removal of the external genitalia” – but in practice is substantially different. Female genital cut- ting or mutilation comprises all surgical procedures involving partial or total removal of the ex- ternal genitalia and other injuries to the female genital organs. FGM frequently involves com- plete or partial removal of the clitoris or clitoral hood (type I) as well additional cutting and stitching of the labia resulting in a constricted vaginal opening (types II and III). These latter procedures pose risks to the mother and infant during childbirth. A WHO-sponsored study found, for instance, increased death rates among infants during and shortly after birth and in- creased rates of obstetric complications if the mothers had previously undergone types II and III FGM (see: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr30/en/index.html).

There are no known health benefits associated with FGM and no research evidence to suggest that such procedures could reduce the risk of HIV transmission. For these reasons, WHO is strongly opposed to FGM. For further information, see: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/ fgm/index.html."

I'll educate you that male circumcision started for similar reasons as female cutting; they used to cut girls right alongside boys in the US. They wanted to decrease sex drive, cause pain, stop masturbation. In both sexes. Does that sound like "medicine"?

Circumcized men are just as able as uncircumcized men to masturbate.

The US is a developed country and HIV is extremely rare.

A simple condom has a much, much, higher protection rate.

The study that you're quotung is, unfortunately, incredibly flawed, in the first place.

Far be it from me to presume the WHO a more authoritative source than somebody on reddit.

From the WHO: "Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes: the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices; the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use."

"Happier dying of HIV" -- stay away from hyperbole. The rest of the developed world does great without RIC. Guess which country actually has the highest HIV rate? You fucking guessed it. Good old US of A.

And the American obsession with intactivism will do nothing but increase the risk of HIV in a country already riddled with it.

The choice should be left up to the individual.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point, but your opinions regarding circumcision are factually wrong.

[–]ghostzanit 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 12 時間前

[–]treefinger1235 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 14 時間前

[+]DerpyGrooves[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント (9 子コメント)

[–]Frase 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 13 時間前

[–]AlwaysCorrects 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 6 時間前

[–]ghostzanit 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 13 時間前

[+]DerpyGrooves[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント (4 子コメント)

[–]treefinger1235 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 13 時間前

[–]theirsknowhope 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 14 時間前

[+]DerpyGrooves[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント (5 子コメント)

[–]theirsknowhope 9 ポイント10 ポイント11 ポイント 14 時間前

[+]DerpyGrooves[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント (3 子コメント)

[–]Metrado 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 11 時間前

The studies finding the link basically got a bunch of uncut men, cut half of them, then came back a year later to see who was infected; and the uncut men had higher prevalence. Science!

Except the cut men also had additional sexual education, which... tends to reduce STD transmission. They also stopped halfway through gathering data (suppoedly because they had enough to draw their conclusions, but damn... you don't do that).

And it's routine infant circumcision. Since when is a baby boy at risk of catching HIV through his penis? Doesn't exactly happen often. By the time a male is at an age to have sex, they can at least have some input on whether they'd rather get bits of the penis cut off... or use a condom.

When somebody is told "there, you're now far safer from HIV", and some people even call it a vaccine, they tend to be less likely to look for other methods that actually work.

There's no correlation between HIV prevalence and circumcision prevalence. If it really reduced HIV transmission chances by 60%, you'd expect there to be some...

It's extremely comparable. For one - FGM may reduce HIV transmission too (less study has been done on the matter because nobody wants to find out, but the evidence is similarly strong). Multiple forms of FGM are less harmful than circumcision. Certainly infibulation or clitoridectomies are more harmful, but they aren't the only kind.

π Rendered by PID 17720 on app-197 at 2014-06-23 18:25:15.346827+00:00 running 9d960aa country code: JP.

justneckbeardthings

Justneckbeardthings

Rules

Creating JNBT Image Macros

Other Subreddits

調停者

justneckbeardthings

Justneckbeardthings

Rules

Creating JNBT Image Macros

Other Subreddits

調停者

この操作にはログインまたは登録が必要です

新しいアカウントを作る

privacy philosophy

ログイン