Disturbing Genital Mutilation at Cornell University

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Hazystars
 


So just like with religion, there is wackjobs found in science as well. I hope everyone starts using their own brain when it comes to matters of the world....




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The FU&K is wrong with people these days? He needs to get his medical license taking away! 6 years old being tested with a vibrator to increase sensitivity wtf!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pavelivanov22
 


Your twisting words up here.

The procedure is to halt a condition called: Congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

They are not increasing any sensitivity, they are testing if the nerves are still functioning properly.

The condition can be seriously debilitating and have a wide range of side-effects.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I found this creep's pic,

he is for legit, and here I thought this thread might be a hoax.. uhhg.

www.weillcornell.org...



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
more like 1984 every day, its getting rediculous. when will people see whats happening to us



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dianashay
I found this creep's pic,

he is for legit, and here I thought this thread might be a hoax.. uhhg.

www.weillcornell.org...


Thanks for the link! I wish this story was a hoax, but all of the facts indicated otherwise.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pjslug
Absolutely outrageous.... He is like a modern day Josef Mengele. What other reason for this pedophile act than his own, sick, sexual fascination? What parents would actually allow this kind of horrendous torture, and moreso how the hell is this legal??

The world wasn't bad enough, so we needed to bring back Nazi-esque doctors.


I'm am still researching this mans experiments however your reply was the first in the thread so i wanted to deal with it out of curiosity. I have a simple question.

Do you also argue against male circumcision? Men in the USA and a few other countries are routinely having their genitals mutilated. They have their foreskin removed, drastically reducing their sexual pleasure, exposing them to conditions like hardening of the glands of the penis and a number of other issues. Yet this is mainstream and accepted, no one cares and often peopel say it's positive. Many women even say they prefer the look and yet if you dared to say you prefer the look of a vagina with it's labia and clitoris removed you would be vilified.

I will research this mans work further, atm i think it's horrible but i won't stand by as a double standard is happily espoused.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by James Battleworthy
more like 1984 every day, its getting rediculous. when will people see whats happening to us



What a stupid statement. Female genital mutilation has been declared illegal by the UN and yet men are regularly disfigured. Where is your bledding heart for them? Genital mutilation is not a modern phenomenon so why are you talking about 1984?

This man needs to be looked at, as i said in my earlier reply i am looking at his research. Hopefully this has some scientific basis but atm i'm failing to see it.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
From the OP's article


"In fact, it seems to me that this is the kind of thing that a) Cornell University should not be tolerating, as a matter of practice and b) may well be worthy of actually legislating on, given the recent discussion of the American Academy of Pediatrics signing off on what amounts to better-branded female genital mutilation where needed to satisfy certain cultural dictates," said Mair.


I love this bit, so a girl having her genitals mutilated to conform to cultural dictates is wrong, even considered by an official body but a boy having his genitals mutilated is absolutely fine and hardly anyone ever questions it.

If you hate what happened to this girl but support the circumcision of boys then please shut up, don't ever post in this thread again because yo uare an absolute hypocrite.

I hate this hypocrisy.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
From the OP's article


"In fact, it seems to me that this is the kind of thing that a) Cornell University should not be tolerating, as a matter of practice and b) may well be worthy of actually legislating on, given the recent discussion of the American Academy of Pediatrics signing off on what amounts to better-branded female genital mutilation where needed to satisfy certain cultural dictates," said Mair.


I love this bit, so a girl having her genitals mutilated to conform to cultural dictates is wrong, even considered by an official body but a boy having his genitals mutilated is absolutely fine and hardly anyone ever questions it.

If you hate what happened to this girl but support the circumcision of boys then please shut up, don't ever post in this thread again because yo uare an absolute hypocrite.

I hate this hypocrisy.



Word. You're preaching directly to my choir, ImaginaryReality! I think it's illogical that most people don't see circumcision as genital mutilation as well.

I personally don't agree with these cultural practices, but i'm also not proposing that they should be outright outlawed either. I do think that the person that's being chopped up should be informed of what's going on at age where they can give legal consent. Humans alter their form all the time, including their genitals (the Prince Albert, pubic hair coloring is also quite popular), but it's usually an adult making that decision for themselves.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hazystars
Word. You're preaching directly to my choir, ImaginaryReality! I think it's illogical that most people don't see circumcision as genital mutilation as well.

I personally don't agree with these cultural practices, but i'm also not proposing that they should be outright outlawed either. I do think that the person that's being chopped up should be informed of what's going on at age where they can give legal consent. Humans alter their form all the time, including their genitals (the Prince Albert, pubic hair coloring is also quite popular), but it's usually an adult making that decision for themselves.



Oh please don't get me wrong. If someone decides to undergo such a procedure later in life then i would not ever stand in their way. I just think it's wrong that a parent can decide to mutilate their childs body. Correcting flaws is one thing, like a cleft pallet, but to take away a perfectly functional part of the normal anatomy is another thing and i just get so utterly angry over the hypocrisy. Especially when i see women, nearly always american women talking about the uncut penis as if it's a terrible and disgusting feature on a man. They are happy to mutilate him for their aesthetic ideals.

The child never has a choice whether he wants to keep a part of his anatomy that is perfectly normal and that needs to change.

EDIT

I just want to say that i speak as an uncut male, i have no mourning for my foreskin. I say this only because i have seen on other discussions about ths issue where men are accused of being over sensitive about " a little bit of skin they lost".

Such a horrible statement.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
It occurs to me that people are thinking this is some form of circumcision.

That is not what this procedure is about.

It is to remove the excess (hence nonfunctional) tissue and deformity while allowing the child to grow up with genitalia that hasn't been stripped of its sensory capacity.

That is why the sensitivity is tested. And a vibratory device is not necessarily a dildo.

There is a weirdly provincial attitude about this, but I wonder if any patients have complained after the fact, or if parents have.

Perhaps there are some who assume that if there is a medical need for something, it better have nothing to do with sex organs, because any treatment for a non-adult will be automatically be deemed a 'sexual' thing.

Why is this considered mutilation? This is not the circumcision that takes place in some of the old world countries that want there women 'unmoved' by sexual temptation. This is about the child growing up able to have a normal sex life. Is that wrong? Would they prefer to grow up deformed and wait for the surgery until they are older? I don't know. But the objections to this need to be quantified.

The OP's article indicates there are those who wish to categorize this as mutilation, including the reporter/editor of the news organization. Maybe that sells better than the story of children who need to have corrective surgery, and the medical practice that accommodates that need.

I suppose that it is possible some surgeries may be unnecessary, but I hardly think this article explains why. It just hurls nasty inferences and arouses the ire of those who take it at face value.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Maxmars]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Hazystars
Word. You're preaching directly to my choir, ImaginaryReality! I think it's illogical that most people don't see circumcision as genital mutilation as well.

I personally don't agree with these cultural practices, but i'm also not proposing that they should be outright outlawed either. I do think that the person that's being chopped up should be informed of what's going on at age where they can give legal consent. Humans alter their form all the time, including their genitals (the Prince Albert, pubic hair coloring is also quite popular), but it's usually an adult making that decision for themselves.



Oh please don't get me wrong. If someone decides to undergo such a procedure later in life then i would not ever stand in their way. I just think it's wrong that a parent can decide to mutilate their childs body. Correcting flaws is one thing, like a cleft pallet, but to take away a perfectly functional part of the normal anatomy is another thing and i just get so utterly angry over the hypocrisy. Especially when i see women, nearly always american women talking about the uncut penis as if it's a terrible and disgusting feature on a man. They are happy to mutilate him for their aesthetic ideals.

The child never has a choice whether he wants to keep a part of his anatomy that is perfectly normal and that needs to change.

EDIT

I just want to say that i speak as an uncut male, i have no mourning for my foreskin. I say this only because i have seen on other discussions about ths issue where men are accused of being over sensitive about " a little bit of skin they lost".

Such a horrible statement.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]


I know many women like the ones you've mentioned and most of them have never been with a man that's uncut to begin with (very rare in America). It's so not just "a little bit of skin lost," so many nerve endings that could have responded in a pleasurable manner are gone forever. It's sad how many men don't even know what they're missing, or they don't even care and will do it to their own sons.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I am reviewing the guys research and trying to find papers before i judge to clearly because obviously if the genitals of the girls involved are malformed then surgery would be necessary to prevent them from a life of ridicule. My annoyance about this thread at the moment is how much attention a thread about female genital mutilation gets while male genital mutilation is ignored.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The first time I saw a 'centre-spread' of female genitalia I was amazed how different we all are - it's natural to compare what you see with what you yourself have. That said , what's to say a female child having her clitoral area reduced through surgery may ultimately not experience the arousal she was born to experience ?

On another note, in the days when we didn't have so many partners, or top shelf 'perfect vagina' spreads in magazines, who would have known they were different ?

Larger - nosed people may opt for rhinoplasty - but not at age 5/6.

I would rather let this sort of surgery be left to adulthood when all the sensors are fully developed and the child in question can make that decision for herself. Adult vaginal corrective surgery of varying degrees is available - why demonise excess skin/tissue and scar the child potentially for life with memories of this ordeal ?



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
He is mutilating them then molesting them and is using his position to impose his sexual ideals on little girls who would otherwise have rights. "Medical research" or not he is touching them in order to sexually arouse them. There was no medical reason to cut half their clitorus off.. a woman being sexually arroused is not a disfunction. Where are the police in all this? Why is he exempt from following the law? Throw him in prison!

As for the parents.. I suspect some are using his "research" as a way to follow tribal custom without being charged with child abuse.


[edit on 18-6-2010 by riley]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
It is to remove the excess (hence nonfunctional) tissue and deformity while allowing the child to grow up with genitalia that hasn't been stripped of its sensory capacity.

That is why the sensitivity is tested. And a vibratory device is not necessarily a dildo.


Exactly. And exactly why people insinuating that parents may be using this doctor's practice to get around the genital mutilation laws is so bizarre -- the entire point of this procedure seems to be to preserve the normal sensory capacity of the clitoris. If you read the article (there's a link posted to a pdf of one of this doctor's articles on the first page of the thread), it even gives some history of how the condition used to be treated and the sexual problems resulting from those treatments.

The follow-up tests are to determine how successful they have been in preserving sensation in the clitoris, not to "sexually stimulate" the patients. They measure how long it takes for blood to return to the tissue, and whether they can detect vibratory stimulus -- they're looking for the threshold at which the patient feels it, not for a sexual reaction to it. That seems like a reasonable way to determine the success of the operation to me.

The question of whether or not infants/children with ambiguous genitalia should be operated on is an interesting one in itself, and I honestly have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I have problems with the idea that they have to be made "normal" but on the other I can only imagine the social (and later sexual) problems that could be caused by having such a condition. It seems to me that in the absence of definitive evidence for or against early surgery, it should be the parents' choice.


The OP's article indicates there are those who wish to categorize this as mutilation, including the reporter/editor of the news organization. Maybe that sells better than the story of children who need to have corrective surgery, and the medical practice that accommodates that need.

I suppose that it is possible some surgeries may be unnecessary, but I hardly think this article explains why. It just hurls nasty inferences and arouses the ire of those who take it at face value.


I think you've hit in on the nose there -- it sells well and arouses ire. To all those experiencing a knee-jerk reaction to the OP, I would recommend reading the medical article and maybe looking into the conditions that this doctor treats with this procedure. From the journal article:


Of these patients 46 (90%) were genetic females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, 3 (6%) were 46 XY who had undergone sex reassignment surgeries and 2 (4%) were 46 XX disorder of sexual development.

Source: Jennifer Yang, Diane Felsen, and Dix P.Poppas "Nerve Sparing Ventral Clitoroplasty: Analysis of Clitoral Sensitivity and Viability", link can be found on page one of this thread.

edit to fix tags

[edit on 6/19/2010 by americandingbat]



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
I was a little weirded out when I started reading this. It's all cool now though. Although I think this Dr is weird as Hell and I understand the whole vibrator thing..not saying I agree with it.
Thing is though, if I had a daughter that had some big dong swinging in the breeze, I would be concerned.
What if you came across something like that on a date. Would you appreciate it? I would be freaked out and probably forever scarred from such an encounter.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Hazystars
 


Are you kidding- this doc is doing followups to improve surgical correction of a developmental "defect".

These kids have ambiguous genitalia- think so- called hermaphrodites, chicks w/ ____ etc.

There is nothing wrong with treating and improving a medical condition.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I am uncircumsized and do not support forced circumcision. So don't call me a hypocrite. We now know that circumcision is not valuable to us. In fact, all of the research I have done tells me that circumcision is bad. Whatever excuse they might have had for it 30 years ago is out of date. We DO need to periodically clean under the foreskin, like when we shower. I think the reason they did it in the past was because they were afraid of infection due to lack of hygeine in certain communiities. But I think the gains versus the losses now is in the favor of being uncircumsized.

(btw, uncleaned foreskin reminds me of uncleaned an uncleaned mouth... the fact that our teeth get steadily worse because of our unclean mouth means that we should cut off our mouth? nature does not always make things perfectly, but I'd still rather trust nature in htese cases.)

This is different from circumcision, though. The primary different between circumcision and this is that an uncircumsized private is NORMAL, but a ambigious genetal is not. The question in my mind is: is it normal to have people who show characteristics of both sexes? Who're we to say what's normal and what's not? Are we suddenly god now? I think it's arrogant.

I think that unless the child is old enough to make the choice on their own, we should NOT force it on them. I think that something deeper is going on inside them and by forcing their genitals to look a certain way you're creating an imbalance between what's inside their body and what's outside their body. This imbalance will scar them for life. Why not give them a chance to grow up and see how it goes? If they do not like it when they're old enough to consider its implications then by all means allow them to attain whatever image they're after.

It does bother me that he's applying stimulation. A child at that age doesn't know what it means. I did not know it meant until I was about 12 or 13. What will this do to a child that's 5-8?

I think we're forcing our images on children. I just, deep inside, feel this is wrong.
edit on 28-8-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join