i dont think your supposed to talk about sex the way you just did here. but oh well. and like i said circumcision is okay because otherwise there is a good chance of infection that could quite possibly be fatal.

Originally posted by phantompatriot
i dont think your supposed to talk about sex the way you just did here. but oh well. and like i said circumcision is okay because otherwise there is a good chance of infection that could quite possibly be fatal.

Horse hockey

I am uncircumcisied and have never had any problems with any type of infection. Think soap and water.

And as far as women go, most have liked it and the few who didnt before hand, did after I was done with them

As someone else mentioned at a young age I had a little problem pulling it back but after years of pratice it was no problem at all

In all seriousness I doubt there is any valid reason for circumcision unless of course you want to be part of the jewish NWO J/K

Originally posted by phantompatriot
i dont think your supposed to talk about sex the way you just did here. but oh well. and like i said circumcision is okay because otherwise there is a good chance of infection that could quite possibly be fatal.

This is not true, an uncircumsized male can keep his penis perfectly clean.

The fact that female circumcision is done when the girls are about 12 is overshadowed by the fact that in the same countries where females undergo the operation, males undergo the operation at about the same age. The reason why Westerners believe it to be ok for a male is because in the west males are expected to 'suck it up' and not be 'girly' about things. If you talk to a tribal African male who has the operation done at puberty you will find that it is a ritual for manhood and he has the support of his elders and peers, even though the operation is daunting. Females in those tribes undergo the same conditioning. Females have a clitoris at birth also and could undergo the operation at infancy as well if it was accepted in modern cultures.

Also, whether it is done to children at any age, I don't see the difference. I've seen male infants undergo circumcision and it is done without pain killers of any kind. The child screams his brains out and is in the same pain and distress any adult male would feel if the same procedue was done to him, except without the mental conditioning required to understand the pain. It's ok though, because babies don't really feel pain. Uh-huh. The mental effects on a male who undergoes this is not known, but psychologists profess that external stimuli starts when a child is still in the womb, and some people can recall memories from that time consciously.

circumcism considerably toughens the glans of the penis. Iyam uncircumcised, and i yam very sensitive! There seem to be a lot of opinions here from folks with no real experience ;]....

I have an idea, however, in a military milieu in which being able to rape and pillage is the winning strategy, a circumcised army would be way better at raping and pillaging. No way am i gonna stick my thing into a unyeilding dry orfice.....Owwww!

read the old testement, raping and impregnating the enemy was the winning strategy for the outnumbered nomadic tribes. mother's do not send there sons to kill there fathers.....

Originally posted by herm
No way am i gonna stick my thing into a unyeilding dry orfice.....Owwww!

Rapists face the same dilemna. Any male who has thought about it probably wonders how rape is possible against an unwilling subject. The unsavory fact is that in a true rape case, the pain the instigator feels is minimal compared to the reward they recieve from the act itself. Sex is highly mental and so is sexual deviance.

Rapists can often be identified soon after the crime by the damage done to their own genitalia from the forcible act. You hear about it in police investigations but rarely in crime dramas. Everyone who watches CSI or Law and Order knows about a rape kit taken from the female, or a penile swab, but not about what happens to the rapist. There is good reason for this and it doesn't filter down into pop culture understanding of investigations.

The fact that rapists can do damage to themselves could be used in court defense. The prosecutor is not going to make the accused look like he was injured, and the defense is never going to admit to an act of rape - admitting a penis was injured would be an instant verdict of guilty. So, people outside of law enforcement and the courts don't really know that rapists can suffer physical damage to themselves, but investigators do, and its something they look for when taking in suspects.

Originally posted by kastinyque
However although I am against it I do not beleive that the physiological and physical effects are the same when it comes to boys vs girls genital mutilation, for one the forskin does not really provide much in the way of sensation, whereas the clitoris most certainly does, in fact there are reletivly few women who are able to have an orgasm without some sort of clitoral stimulation, the two men who I have had intercouse with who had been circumcised could still orgasm.Actually I suppose if the male vs female mutilations were equal it would be the women labia being removed as that serves more or less the same function of providing a protective layer of skin for the more sensitive parts of the organ. Of course I dont agree with doing mutilation to either sex.

A GREAT point here. While they are both mutilation, male circumcision and female circumcision are very different both in intent, and what is actually done. Removing a foreskin is unneeded, and can cause reduced sensitivity, and when done without a sterile environment can be a great risk. Female circumcision, where the clitoris is removed, and in some cases the labia are removed, is devestating to the woman mentally, physically, and sexually. The intent is to curb sexual desire, and well, it works. Is it *possible* that some women can still enjoy sex? (and not just lie and say they to to please their husband) Sure it's *possible* but these women may not even know what a real orgasm feels like after having such a part removed.

Either one is bad, but comparing the two as equal is just plain ignorant.

Originally posted by phantompatriot
and like i said circumcision is okay because otherwise there is a good chance of infection that could quite possibly be fatal.

In what century? It's more likely to have a fatal infection from the procedure itself than from not being circumsized.

Originally posted by RedBalloon


The intent is to curb sexual desire, and well, it works. Is it *possible* that some women can still enjoy sex? (and not just lie and say they to to please their husband) Sure it's *possible* but these women may not even know what a real orgasm feels like after having such a part removed.

Either one is bad, but comparing the two as equal is just plain ignorant.

I wouldn't say it's ignorant saying the two are the same. Sexual pleasure and orgasm is largely mental. Transgendered males who change sex surgically often report they experience orgasms, and they no longer have sexual organs in the conventional sense. Males who undergo penectomies are also able to experience orgasms. Males who undergo castration can, too. Females who undergo circumcision can experience them also. Sexual feelings and orgasm are not simply pure mechanical functions, like the operation of a motor engine wherein the lack of a fuel injector will not allow the motor to ignite.

Males who undergo circumcision at birth have no idea that their penis is not as nature intended and that they were in essence disfigured, and do not miss the lack of sensation with their altered organs. Likewise, women who undergo circumsision in adulthood rituals are most likely virgins at the time, and like their mothers and peers are unfamiliar with the differences in sensation.

At the same time, there are many anatomically normal male and females adults who are impotent. There are many females who can't experience an orgasm in conjunction with a male partner through 'normal' sex.

Females who undergo circumcision or other mutilation to the genitalia are not sexually nullified or androgeonous. They still have the same sexual urges caused by hormones and a desire for intamacy experienced by males. Humans are not robots and sex is not as simple as a math formula where A + B = C.

Sex is a higher form of intimacy - human contact in the most sensitive areas of the body, around which superstitions as old as reproduction fly freely. Ultimately, the mutilation of human genitalia is a practice of mankind's age-old attempts at controlling nature. Circumcision or alteration of the sexual organs of both males and females derives from tribal superstitions surrounding sex and is aimed to curb pleasure. Males circumcised at birth have no idea that they lack sensitivity and therefor the ritual is percieved as harmless, accepted, and inflicted on their children.

It is ignorant to say that the two are the same all though I beleive that they are both wrong. While you are right in saying that orgasam can be acheived mentally, a man who undergoes circumcision is having the area that protects the sensitive part removed, a woman who undergoes female circumcision is having the area that protects the sensitive part AS WELL as the part that is the most sensitive, which can be very traumatic to a young womans sex life, especially since the young woman in question is 11-13 years old usually, just really starting to feel sexual urges, when this procedure is conducted. To make the effect on a man equal to the effect on a woman we would be taking 12 year old boys and cutting off the lower half of the penis, not just a bit of skin.

I still do not believe the two are equal. Female circumcision is far more destructive. The removal of a sexual organ is far more extreme. I agree that sexual stimulation is largely in the mind, and it is a major part in being sexually satisfied. Yes, it's *possible* that a woman can experience orgasm without her clitoris, but much much more unlikely.

FGM is more analogous to lopping off the head of the penis along with the foreskin.

You mention that often women cannot experience orgasm through straight sex - EXACTLY! Clitoral stimulation is so much more powerful and pleasurable, and many women I know cannot orgasm unless their clitoris is directly stimulated.

I completely agree that there is so much more to sex than the physical. I wish more people understood that. You have excellent points about sexuality in general. My only sticking point is that MGM and FGM are not equal in terms of the damage done. Removing a foreskin is not removing the entire organ. With FGM, the organ along with much of the surrounding tissue is removed. It's far more devestating. Both are deplorable, both are mutilation, but they are just not equal.



[edit on 23-8-2004 by RedBalloon]

Originally posted by kastinyque
It is ignorant to say that the two are the same all though I beleive that they are both wrong. While you are right in saying that orgasam can be acheived mentally, a man who undergoes circumcision is having the area that protects the sensitive part removed, a woman who undergoes female circumcision is having the area that protects the sensitive part AS WELL as the part that is the most sensitive, which can be very traumatic to a young womans sex life, especially since the young woman in question is 11-13 years old usually, just really starting to feel sexual urges, when this procedure is conducted. To make the effect on a man equal to the effect on a woman we would be taking 12 year old boys and cutting off the lower half of the penis, not just a bit of skin.

It's not exactly 'just a bit of skin' like something you might bite off the edge of a thumbnail. The glans and the clitoris start out as precisely the same organ in an infant and develop in accordance with a person's gender. The prepuce on a female is commonly known as the clitoral hood and on males the prepuce is the foreskin.

The foreskin is simply not a 'bit of skin.' To say so would be ignorant, but let's not jump to labels. The foreskin is a double-folded construct of skin and mucosal tissue (mucuous membrane) consisting of skin externally, mucosal tissue internally, nerve endings, blood vessels, and a band of muscle at the tip of the organ. In the foreskin are about 20,000 messier corpsucles, which are specialized nerves. All nerve-rich areas of the body have strong blood flow. The foreskin contains about 80% of the male errogenous tissue.

Cultural conditioning has you convinced that the foreskin is 'just a bit of skin,' when in fact it is as serious to the male as the clitoral hood is to the female. If you remove the foreskin you have a highly desensitized penis, and if you remove the clitoris you have a highly desensitized vagina. The term 'desensitized vagina' sounds ignorant, does it not? Well that's because it is, but look at the two terms 'desensitized penis' and 'desensitized vagina' together.

One term sounds normal and one does not. This reflects cultural attitudes to males and females. In contemporary culture we accept the fact that the vagina is a complex organ whereas the penis is just an insensitive rod. In reality both organs are on the same level of complexity. Could we be taking the fact that the penis is somehow less sensitive than the vagina because circumcision literally makes it so? Circumcision of a male removes 80% of the penis' errogenous tissue. It is a severe mutilation equal on all terms to clitorectomy.

Both operations originate from tribal attempts at quelling sexual passions. On males in the West, it passed into acceptance, and then transmuted into social and cultural normalcy to the point that non-mutilation of the penis is considered abnormal.

The only reason that female genital mutilation is not accepted whereas male genital mutilation is 'cutting off a bit of skin,' is because we are not conditioned to accept it. This provides fertile grounds for anti-circ organizations to exploit racist views of the methods, motives, and practice of female genital mutilation among 'dirty tribes in Africa where males subjugate females by mutilating their genitals with sharp pieces of glass.' In reality we are talking about the mutilation of children's genitals and circumcision is equally devastating among both genders by reducing the sensitivity of the sexual organs.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by taibunsuu]

ok personal time, but i dont care. I live in the uk and male circumcision is not common in non-jews. I am not a jew and I live in the Uk and I am circumcised. The only problems i've had is just feeling a bit unconfortable when my friends at school would talk about how bad circumcision is, but to tell you the truth Im glad my parents decided to do this. Obviously i have no idea wht its like to have a foreskin, but if it is 80% more sensitive with it, too bad for you, sex lasts so long for me, and its great! Plus the cleanliness issue must be better, because i dont even have to think about it, just a quick jiggle and im clean! Yes it is a bit weird to have had something cut off without my consent, but it doent matter, its done and i dont miss it, in my experince, im happier without it.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
I'm wondering lately why circumcision is not properly called Male Genital Mutilation, whereas female circumcision is known as such. Circumcision for males is culturally accepted in the West, yet when it happens to females it's considered a horrid tragedy perpetuated by irrational, superstitious cultures.

The foreskin of the male is an unimportant non functional peice of tissue. In Femail Genital mutilation, functioning organs are actually removed. In some cases the labia are sheared off, in others the clitoris is snipped in half or surgically removed all together. Its called genital mutilation because its so much more extreme.

The idea that male circumcision is performed for hygiene is not true,

Well, the existence of the foreskin does allow, if not properly cleaned, bacteria, dirt and the rest to build-up. Is that a good reason to remove it, I suppose thats another issue.

whereas Male Genital Mutilation is still conveniently referred to as the benign-sounding circumcision,

Well, its definitley arguable as to how much of a mutilation foreskin removal is. Other the other hand, there are definitely practices that are more inline with being 'mutilation'. I think that we have specific terms for male genital mutilation because thats where the focus has been, whereas for women its a foregin concept and a new word had to be created ad hoc. For example, amoung some australian aborigines, after an act of ritual circumcision, which apparently isn't described as horribly painful, a young male initiate will undergo subinscision which simply must be blindlingly painful. Years later, some men will have the ritual performed again, and supposedly some have even had it performed a third time. Apparently the entire length of the urethra is slit open with a flint knife. Now -that- is undisputably mutilation.

since the glans and the clitoris are the most-common feature of male and female genitalia.

The foreskin is merely skin, its not a functional organ or anything. The clitoris is an analouge of the entire male penis, and even supposedly has more nerve endings than it. Removing it is an entirely different and much more extreme affair than removing the foreskin.

amuk:
And as far as women go, most have liked it and the few who didnt before hand, did after I was done with them

Guess that settles that eh?

phantompatriot:
i dont think your supposed to talk about sex the way you[kastinyque?] just did here

Why? If it happens, its real, and there is no reason to not discuss it.

taibunsuu:
The glans and the clitoris start out as precisely the same organ in an infant and develop in accordance with a person's gender[...] it is as serious to the male as the clitoral hood is to the female

The latter analogy is probably more accurate than the first.

If you remove the foreskin you have a highly desensitized penis, and if you remove the clitoris you have a highly desensitized vagina

The vagina (or I pressume here you mean vulva no?) and the penis are not analogs. The clitoris and penis are probably better analogs for one another. The labia and the scrotum are derived from the same embryonic tissue, for example.

Where did you get that information about the forskin having 80 percent of the nerves of the entire,...aparattus? Are you sure you don't mean that its 80 percent of the surface area? Also, the foreskin is not involved in copulation, the penis exits it during sex, and its not normally involved in the sex act, so its contribution must be less than 80 percent of the sexual experience no?


Eitherway your overall point, that circumcision is mutilation, is seems more or less correct, but I think anyone would rather be a circumcised male than a female who's had both sets of labia and the clitoris and its hood removed and had the remained of the labia sewn back together.

Originally posted by taibunsuu

It's not exactly 'just a bit of skin' like something you might bite off the edge of a thumbnail. The glans and the clitoris start out as precisely the same organ in an infant and develop in accordance with a person's gender. The prepuce on a female is commonly known as the clitoral hood and on males the prepuce is the foreskin.

The foreskin is definitely more than a "bit of skin" its valuable and should not be removed. However, the glans and the clitoris do indeed start out as the same organ, however, when the foreskin is removed, the glans is then exposed, but not removed. In women, when circimcision is performed, the entire organ is removed - not just the "hood."

Originally posted by taibunsuu
In the foreskin are about 20,000 messier corpsucles, which are specialized nerves. All nerve-rich areas of the body have strong blood flow. The foreskin contains about 80% of the male errogenous tissue.

Might want to reread your source. The 80% statistic likely comes from the ridged band that is usually *covered* by the foreskin, not the foreskin itself. "The foreskin contains" the sensitive parts - meaning it holds it inside and protects it. When males are circumcised, the protective container only is removed. Again, this is not good, mutilation, effects sensitivity and so on. Female circumcision is removing the hood and clitoris. The container and its contents. There is nothing left to be exposed and become less sensitive. It's gone.

I have never met an uncircumcised man who appears to think that 80% of his errogenous tissue lies in his foreskin. It's pulled back and away. It's not the center of pleasure, and it's not something that is given a majority of attention to. Uncircumcised guys: your oppinion on this? Let me state again, though, I agree that its valuable, and needed, and not something that should be removed.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Cultural conditioning has you convinced that the foreskin is 'just a bit of skin,' when in fact it is as serious to the male as the clitoral hood is to the female. If you remove the foreskin you have a highly desensitized penis, and if you remove the clitoris you have a highly desensitized vagina.

We're not talking vaginas here. Were talking about circumcision. The foreskin is indeed important, and no one here seems to be supporting having it removed. Yes, the foreskin is as important as a clitoral hood, and again, when women are circumsized, its the hood, the clitoris, and often labia that are removed. All of it. Again, both bad, but not the same.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
This reflects cultural attitudes to males and females. In contemporary culture we accept the fact that the vagina is a complex organ whereas the penis is just an insensitive rod. In reality both organs are on the same level of complexity.

This isn't a culture argument. This is an anatomical one. Both men and women are equally amazing, and complex. Yes, Dr Freud, I have a great deal of respect for penises, and wouldn't mind having one myself. I do not think for one second that they are an insensitive rod - quite the opposite. Likely a great deal more sensitive than the clitoris, but then again I've never been able to hold my clitoris in my hand. Why do I say likely more sensitive? Who has to be aroused for sex to occur and keep the species going? Men. Women don't *have* to reach orgasm to become pregnant, but biologically speaking, if nature had to pick a sex to be more responsive and sensitive, I think nature would pick the man. I don't think anyone here is culturally discounting the penis. I'm not trying to discount the female orgasm either.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
In reality we are talking about the mutilation of children's genitals and circumcision is equally devastating among both genders by reducing the sensitivity of the sexual organs.

Yes. It is mutilation, but the degree of devastation and reduced sensitivity is no where near equal. Is your cultural bias to discount the clitoris as not an organ of sexual function? I'm not saying that because it is not equal that its okay for a man to be circumcised. I find it barbaric, also. This is not a racist argument or a cultural one. Show me a male circumcision where the entire end of the penis is lopped off along with the foreskin, then it will be equal in terms of anatomy and sexual sensitivity (assuming that the female circumcision being compared doesn't include removing labia and/or sewing the woman closed). That type of circumcision on men doesn't happen.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by RedBalloon]

If the end of the penis (the bell end) was lopped off, would the penis still be able to function properly? The thought of it makes me wince.

I apologize for calling forskin "a bit of skin", I meant it realativly and not literally, I agree much sensitivity would be lost from removing the forskin because the head of the penis would not longer be protected, it would suffer more everyday friction due to the loss of protection, thereby making the penis less sensitive.
That said I have yet to hear of a man who has had an orgasm simply by having his forskin stimulated, whereas most women orgams though clitoral stimulation. If the clitoris is removed a woman can still have a physical orgasm but it does become a more difficult process, needing to have the gland within the vagina stimulated for it to happen, likewise men usually are brought to orgasm by the glands in the head of the penis being stimulated, if you were to remove the head a man could still have an orgasm but it becomes more difficult, the prostate gland must be stimulated, either by massage behind the testicals or rectal massage.

Originally posted by taibunsuuWhy is it, when westerners hear of female circumcision, is it so repulsive, but male circumcision is taken for granted?

Look at some photos of a recently done circumcision. Now look at a photo of a recently done 'female circumcision'. The effects of removing the foreskin are completely, totally, and outrageously different than that of removing the labia, clitoris, clitoral hood, and stiching parts of the vulva closed.

There are different forms of female genital mutilation. What most of you keep referring to is Infibulation. Infibulation involves the removal of the clitoris, clitoral hood, and the inner labia followed by it being sewn shut. It is horrific and extreme.

There are also more extreme forms of male genital mutilation. In some Southeast Asian cultures a form of male genital mutilation called "skin-stripping" has been performed ritualistically. It involves full circumcision and stripping of the skin off the scrotum and penile shaft. How about subincision, a splitting open of the glans into the meatus, usually performed after a ritual circumcision?

The clitoris is not more sensitive than the male foreskin. The foreskin contains nerve endings approximately analogous to the female clitoral hood as well as much of the inner labia. Some forms of female genital mutilation, (such as removal of the clitoral hood,) are actually minor compared to the male genital mutilation we practice in the US.

Please do some research before spouting things off as if they are fact.

I think many of you choose to get stuck on this red herring so that you don't have to confront the realities of male genital mutilation.