Religion and Mutilation (was Vaccinations/Circumcision)
[email protected]
Frances said, ". . .It is a Jewish ritual(I don't consider it
mutilation) In Judaism it is done to symbolize basically signing on
the dotted line in each generation to follow the covenant of God."
I haven't chimed in on this discussion because others have been
saying, quite well, what I would if I did. But I feel I must respond
to this.
Certain African pastoralists knock out their children's incisors as
soon as they're fully grown in, to make their teeth look more like
their cows'. . .it's a ritual of belonging (much like a bris), an
outward sign of their inward identity as a part of the tribe and a
very spiritually significant practice. The same goes for those
tribes which cut their adolescents' faces in interesting geometric
patterns and rub foreign matter into the cuts to keep them from
healing smoothly, leaving cicatrices (big, lumpy scars). And for
those Polynesian groups that still use sharp shards of wood or bamboo
to imbed ashes mixed with a variety of other materials into their
young people's skins, creating colored patterns (tatoos). And for
those that start putting rings aroung young girls' necks when they're
very small, in such a way that they stretch them, adding more rings
as the girls age so that by maturity their necks are both
significantly longer and considerably thinner than any human neck
grows otherwise. And for those in which a series of cylinders of
bone or horn of increasing diameter are inserted into the lower lip
and/or earlobes until they stretch into long, loose loops of skin.
Ritual body modification for the purpose of distinguishing members of
one group is a far from isolated practice.
Still, the fact that any given modification is accepted and widely
practiced among the members of a particular ethnic group or sect, and
considered by adult members of that group to be acceptable or even
necessary for socio-religious reasons, does not change its nature.
If your next-door neighbor invited you over to watch and cheer while
he used a rock to knock a couple of teeth out of his adolescent son's
head, would you? What if he said, "We really don't have any choice.
It's a Masai ritual (I don't consider it mutilation),"?
Does he have a right to do it? Well, that's a complicated question.
Is it, however well-intentioned, still mutilation? That's a simpler
one.
If your kid fell down and knocked out a couple of teeth on the
sidewalk, it'd be an injury. If you did it, it still would be. If
your kid had a freak accident with power shears and snipped of the
end of his penis, it'd be a terrible, painful, bloody, disfiguring
wound. And if you have a religious official do it with a sharp rock
or scalpel, IT STILL IS. If you're cutting off, scarring, burning,
or torturously reshaping a chunk of your kid's body, you're
mutilating it, just as much as would be any other force which did the
same thing. Even if you have a "good reason".
This isn't a personal attack against you, and certainly not one
against Judaism. The "I don't have a choice" argument has been used
as a justification for any number of actions by people who claim they
would otherwise not have taken them, and it REALLY bugs me. Social
or religious pressure is not an excuse for not fully considering all
the ramifications of any choice you make, and certainly not a license
to deny responsibility for them.
Misty Blagg
athterath@...
mutilation) In Judaism it is done to symbolize basically signing on
the dotted line in each generation to follow the covenant of God."
I haven't chimed in on this discussion because others have been
saying, quite well, what I would if I did. But I feel I must respond
to this.
Certain African pastoralists knock out their children's incisors as
soon as they're fully grown in, to make their teeth look more like
their cows'. . .it's a ritual of belonging (much like a bris), an
outward sign of their inward identity as a part of the tribe and a
very spiritually significant practice. The same goes for those
tribes which cut their adolescents' faces in interesting geometric
patterns and rub foreign matter into the cuts to keep them from
healing smoothly, leaving cicatrices (big, lumpy scars). And for
those Polynesian groups that still use sharp shards of wood or bamboo
to imbed ashes mixed with a variety of other materials into their
young people's skins, creating colored patterns (tatoos). And for
those that start putting rings aroung young girls' necks when they're
very small, in such a way that they stretch them, adding more rings
as the girls age so that by maturity their necks are both
significantly longer and considerably thinner than any human neck
grows otherwise. And for those in which a series of cylinders of
bone or horn of increasing diameter are inserted into the lower lip
and/or earlobes until they stretch into long, loose loops of skin.
Ritual body modification for the purpose of distinguishing members of
one group is a far from isolated practice.
Still, the fact that any given modification is accepted and widely
practiced among the members of a particular ethnic group or sect, and
considered by adult members of that group to be acceptable or even
necessary for socio-religious reasons, does not change its nature.
If your next-door neighbor invited you over to watch and cheer while
he used a rock to knock a couple of teeth out of his adolescent son's
head, would you? What if he said, "We really don't have any choice.
It's a Masai ritual (I don't consider it mutilation),"?
Does he have a right to do it? Well, that's a complicated question.
Is it, however well-intentioned, still mutilation? That's a simpler
one.
If your kid fell down and knocked out a couple of teeth on the
sidewalk, it'd be an injury. If you did it, it still would be. If
your kid had a freak accident with power shears and snipped of the
end of his penis, it'd be a terrible, painful, bloody, disfiguring
wound. And if you have a religious official do it with a sharp rock
or scalpel, IT STILL IS. If you're cutting off, scarring, burning,
or torturously reshaping a chunk of your kid's body, you're
mutilating it, just as much as would be any other force which did the
same thing. Even if you have a "good reason".
This isn't a personal attack against you, and certainly not one
against Judaism. The "I don't have a choice" argument has been used
as a justification for any number of actions by people who claim they
would otherwise not have taken them, and it REALLY bugs me. Social
or religious pressure is not an excuse for not fully considering all
the ramifications of any choice you make, and certainly not a license
to deny responsibility for them.
Misty Blagg
athterath@...
[email protected]
Misty said:Still, the fact that any given modification is accepted and widely
practiced among the members of a particular ethnic group or sect, and
considered by adult members of that group to be acceptable or even
necessary for socio-religious reasons, does not change its nature.
If your next-door neighbor invited you over to watch and cheer while
he used a rock to knock a couple of teeth out of his adolescent son's
head, would you? What if he said, "We really don't have any choice.
It's a Masai ritual (I don't consider it mutilation),"?
Does he have a right to do it? Well, that's a complicated question.
Is it, however well-intentioned, still mutilation? That's a simpler
one.
Well as I would have to say that your points are far fetched and much much more "tribal" than cirrcummsision. I am Jewish (very reformed) When my son was born, it was no question, although my sis-in-law was shocked and disgusted. I didn't know anyone that wasn't circumsized and thought about not doing it, then thought, why not? 3000 years of history and all the men managed to do just fine with out that foreskin. I really didn't want my son standing in the locker room wishing that he looked like the rest of the guys. Or like his dad for that matter(who is not jewish). What about his girl friends and wife? I don't know if I would have touched one that wasn't "cut". As far as all of those rituals that you mentioned, especially that statement about the kid cutting off the tip of his penis, you must not have paid any attention to the previous post. About the loving and gentle ritual. no body tied down a kid and snipped off the tip of his penis, there is little bleeding!
and not much pain. Less I think than those vacc's we give them in their thigh. It is still a tough choise...what would your son do if he weere able to choose? Oh...what if he wants it done latter in life? That is much more painful! I cried at the sound of my son whimpper, but then he stopped and knd of giggled at the face of his grandfather and all was over. It is a matter of choise and all should be respected for their choise...I am sure that whatever someone chose, it was in what they believed to be in the best intrest of THEIR child.
hava great day!
athterath@... wrote:
hava little love
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
practiced among the members of a particular ethnic group or sect, and
considered by adult members of that group to be acceptable or even
necessary for socio-religious reasons, does not change its nature.
If your next-door neighbor invited you over to watch and cheer while
he used a rock to knock a couple of teeth out of his adolescent son's
head, would you? What if he said, "We really don't have any choice.
It's a Masai ritual (I don't consider it mutilation),"?
Does he have a right to do it? Well, that's a complicated question.
Is it, however well-intentioned, still mutilation? That's a simpler
one.
Well as I would have to say that your points are far fetched and much much more "tribal" than cirrcummsision. I am Jewish (very reformed) When my son was born, it was no question, although my sis-in-law was shocked and disgusted. I didn't know anyone that wasn't circumsized and thought about not doing it, then thought, why not? 3000 years of history and all the men managed to do just fine with out that foreskin. I really didn't want my son standing in the locker room wishing that he looked like the rest of the guys. Or like his dad for that matter(who is not jewish). What about his girl friends and wife? I don't know if I would have touched one that wasn't "cut". As far as all of those rituals that you mentioned, especially that statement about the kid cutting off the tip of his penis, you must not have paid any attention to the previous post. About the loving and gentle ritual. no body tied down a kid and snipped off the tip of his penis, there is little bleeding!
and not much pain. Less I think than those vacc's we give them in their thigh. It is still a tough choise...what would your son do if he weere able to choose? Oh...what if he wants it done latter in life? That is much more painful! I cried at the sound of my son whimpper, but then he stopped and knd of giggled at the face of his grandfather and all was over. It is a matter of choise and all should be respected for their choise...I am sure that whatever someone chose, it was in what they believed to be in the best intrest of THEIR child.
hava great day!
athterath@... wrote:
>Frances said, ". . .It is a Jewish ritual(I don't consider it--
>mutilation) In Judaism it is done to symbolize basically signing on
>the dotted line in each generation to follow the covenant of God."
>
>I haven't chimed in on this discussion because others have been
>saying, quite well, what I would if I did. But I feel I must respond
>to this.
>
>Certain African pastoralists knock out their children's incisors as
>soon as they're fully grown in, to make their teeth look more like
>their cows'. . .it's a ritual of belonging (much like a bris), an
>outward sign of their inward identity as a part of the tribe and a
>very spiritually significant practice. The same goes for those
>tribes which cut their adolescents' faces in interesting geometric
>patterns and rub foreign matter into the cuts to keep them from
>healing smoothly, leaving cicatrices (big, lumpy scars). And for
>those Polynesian groups that still use sharp shards of wood or bamboo
>to imbed ashes mixed with a variety of other materials into their
>young people's skins, creating colored patterns (tatoos). And for
>those that start putting rings aroung young girls' necks when they're
>very small, in such a way that they stretch them, adding more rings
>as the girls age so that by maturity their necks are both
>significantly longer and considerably thinner than any human neck
>grows otherwise. And for those in which a series of cylinders of
>bone or horn of increasing diameter are inserted into the lower lip
>and/or earlobes until they stretch into long, loose loops of skin.
>Ritual body modification for the purpose of distinguishing members of
>one group is a far from isolated practice.
>
>Still, the fact that any given modification is accepted and widely
>practiced among the members of a particular ethnic group or sect, and
>considered by adult members of that group to be acceptable or even
>necessary for socio-religious reasons, does not change its nature.
>If your next-door neighbor invited you over to watch and cheer while
>he used a rock to knock a couple of teeth out of his adolescent son's
>head, would you? What if he said, "We really don't have any choice.
>It's a Masai ritual (I don't consider it mutilation),"?
>
>Does he have a right to do it? Well, that's a complicated question.
>Is it, however well-intentioned, still mutilation? That's a simpler
>one.
>
>If your kid fell down and knocked out a couple of teeth on the
>sidewalk, it'd be an injury. If you did it, it still would be. If
>your kid had a freak accident with power shears and snipped of the
>end of his penis, it'd be a terrible, painful, bloody, disfiguring
>wound. And if you have a religious official do it with a sharp rock
>or scalpel, IT STILL IS. If you're cutting off, scarring, burning,
>or torturously reshaping a chunk of your kid's body, you're
>mutilating it, just as much as would be any other force which did the
>same thing. Even if you have a "good reason".
>
>This isn't a personal attack against you, and certainly not one
>against Judaism. The "I don't have a choice" argument has been used
>as a justification for any number of actions by people who claim they
>would otherwise not have taken them, and it REALLY bugs me. Social
>or religious pressure is not an excuse for not fully considering all
>the ramifications of any choice you make, and certainly not a license
>to deny responsibility for them.
>
>Misty Blagg
>athterath@...
>
>
hava little love
__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
Lynda
I didn't chime in on this one because we've been down this road before and
don't want to get into religion but one comment you made is rather
hypocritical! "tribal" That tribal culture and beliefs is just as old as
yours, if not older. What makes your "tribal" rituals more acceptable and
less open to contempt?
We have 9000 years of history and our men have done quite nicely with their
foreskins, but then our "god/diety" has never asked for any form of
mutilation.
The whole locker room argument is a non-argument. Men don't go around
staring at each other to see if they are or aren't.
And the point about *you* not wanting to touch someone who isn't
circumcised, well, that would appear to be a personal hang up and certainly
not any justification for someone else to be multilated!
Lynda
don't want to get into religion but one comment you made is rather
hypocritical! "tribal" That tribal culture and beliefs is just as old as
yours, if not older. What makes your "tribal" rituals more acceptable and
less open to contempt?
We have 9000 years of history and our men have done quite nicely with their
foreskins, but then our "god/diety" has never asked for any form of
mutilation.
The whole locker room argument is a non-argument. Men don't go around
staring at each other to see if they are or aren't.
And the point about *you* not wanting to touch someone who isn't
circumcised, well, that would appear to be a personal hang up and certainly
not any justification for someone else to be multilated!
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <chavvajo@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: RE: [Unschooling-dotcom] Religion and Mutilation (was
Vaccinations/Circumcision)
> Well as I would have to say that your points are far fetched and much much
more "tribal" than cirrcummsision. I am Jewish (very reformed) When my son
was born, it was no question, although my sis-in-law was shocked and
disgusted. I didn't know anyone that wasn't circumsized and thought about
not doing it, then thought, why not? 3000 years of history and all the men
managed to do just fine with out that foreskin. I really didn't want my son
standing in the locker room wishing that he looked like the rest of the
guys. Or like his dad for that matter(who is not jewish). What about his
girl friends and wife? I don't know if I would have touched one that wasn't
"cut". As far as all of those rituals that you mentioned, especially that
statement about the kid cutting off the tip of his penis, you must not have
paid any attention to the previous post. About the loving and gentle
ritual. no body tied down a kid and snipped off the tip of his penis, there
is little bleeding!
> and not much pain. Less I think than those vacc's we give them in their
thigh. It is still a tough choise...what would your son do if he weere able
to choose? Oh...what if he wants it done latter in life? That is much more
painful! I cried at the sound of my son whimpper, but then he stopped and
knd of giggled at the face of his grandfather and all was over. It is a
matter of choise and all should be respected for their choise...I am sure
that whatever someone chose, it was in what they believed to be in the best
intrest of THEIR child.
>
> hava great day!
Saga
There are cultural groups that circumcise their girls.
This is illegal in the USA and people have been charged for it, or given
political asylum in the US because of its being done in other countries (I
think that is the correct wording I am looking for - I am on little sleep
right now - baby is teething!).
It is just a very touchy thing here - some cultural/religious things are OK
here, others are viewed as "primal" or hideous. Where is the line drawn?
Why is it not OK to circumcise a female, but it is Ok to circumcise a male?
And its not OK to bind feet.
But it is OK to pierce a baby's ears, that is, if it is a girl. Though they
probably wouldn't bring you up on charges if you pierced your son's ear(s),
they very well may if you pierced his tongue.
It's all very confusing to me.
As far as if a child looks like the others, circumcision is not as common
anymore as one would think. I think it is around 45% of boys are not
circumcised. Out of the 20 some little boys I know from my mom's group or
are related to, only 2 are circumcised. Granted it may be the region I'm
in.
Circumcision reduces the amount of sensation in the penis for the man
(something I'm sure some women would argue is a good thing LOL), and from my
personal experience, uncircumcised men feel a lot better to the woman :) I
find it odd that someone would think an uncircumcised man would be a
turn-off. Erect it looks almost identical. But it does feel better in all
the right places.
The extra "bulk" I guess from the foreskin being pulled back happens to be a
benefit in stimulating the G-Spot... I wonder if why so many women have
trouble orgasming during intercourse could be due to whether or not their
mate is circumcised? Don't know, but I do know it was in my case. It would
be interesting to find out though.
Probably more than you wanted to know, but had to comment on that.
-Kristi
This is illegal in the USA and people have been charged for it, or given
political asylum in the US because of its being done in other countries (I
think that is the correct wording I am looking for - I am on little sleep
right now - baby is teething!).
It is just a very touchy thing here - some cultural/religious things are OK
here, others are viewed as "primal" or hideous. Where is the line drawn?
Why is it not OK to circumcise a female, but it is Ok to circumcise a male?
And its not OK to bind feet.
But it is OK to pierce a baby's ears, that is, if it is a girl. Though they
probably wouldn't bring you up on charges if you pierced your son's ear(s),
they very well may if you pierced his tongue.
It's all very confusing to me.
As far as if a child looks like the others, circumcision is not as common
anymore as one would think. I think it is around 45% of boys are not
circumcised. Out of the 20 some little boys I know from my mom's group or
are related to, only 2 are circumcised. Granted it may be the region I'm
in.
Circumcision reduces the amount of sensation in the penis for the man
(something I'm sure some women would argue is a good thing LOL), and from my
personal experience, uncircumcised men feel a lot better to the woman :) I
find it odd that someone would think an uncircumcised man would be a
turn-off. Erect it looks almost identical. But it does feel better in all
the right places.
The extra "bulk" I guess from the foreskin being pulled back happens to be a
benefit in stimulating the G-Spot... I wonder if why so many women have
trouble orgasming during intercourse could be due to whether or not their
mate is circumcised? Don't know, but I do know it was in my case. It would
be interesting to find out though.
Probably more than you wanted to know, but had to comment on that.
-Kristi
Elizabeth Sterling Wall
Female circumcision is NOT the same thing as male circumcision. In Female
circumcision *all* ability to reach orgasm is erased. There is NO clitoris
at all after female circumcision. In most cases, women who have had a
circumcision experience pain at every instance of intercourse for the rest
of their life. The equivalent would not be removing the foreskin but rather
removing the entire glans. Circumcision is not snipping off the "tip" of a
penis, but rather snipping off a bit of skin that *covers* the tip of the
penis.
- elizabeth
"What we need are more people who specialize in the impossible."
-- Theodore Roethke, poet
circumcision *all* ability to reach orgasm is erased. There is NO clitoris
at all after female circumcision. In most cases, women who have had a
circumcision experience pain at every instance of intercourse for the rest
of their life. The equivalent would not be removing the foreskin but rather
removing the entire glans. Circumcision is not snipping off the "tip" of a
penis, but rather snipping off a bit of skin that *covers* the tip of the
penis.
- elizabeth
"What we need are more people who specialize in the impossible."
-- Theodore Roethke, poet
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/13/01 6:34:25 PM, mom@... writes:
<< Circumcision reduces the amount of sensation in the penis for the man
(something I'm sure some women would argue is a good thing LOL), and from my
personal experience, uncircumcised men feel a lot better to the woman :) >>
My first long-term sexual partner was uncircumcised. He was Indian, and
Hindu, and they just don't, and never have.
The head of an uncircumcised penis is soft and tender, and in a mucus
membrane state pretty much. The head of an uncircumcised penis is more like
the skin on the palm of your hand. They need more stimulation to get the
same effect that gentle touch gives to the uncircumcised. This can very
likely be creditted with some of the roughness and pornography in America
today. A physical change was made in a culture with no commentary, no
cultural change, just "it's better" "it's cleaner" (NOT true) "You have no
choice" (often WAS true).
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
<< Circumcision reduces the amount of sensation in the penis for the man
(something I'm sure some women would argue is a good thing LOL), and from my
personal experience, uncircumcised men feel a lot better to the woman :) >>
My first long-term sexual partner was uncircumcised. He was Indian, and
Hindu, and they just don't, and never have.
The head of an uncircumcised penis is soft and tender, and in a mucus
membrane state pretty much. The head of an uncircumcised penis is more like
the skin on the palm of your hand. They need more stimulation to get the
same effect that gentle touch gives to the uncircumcised. This can very
likely be creditted with some of the roughness and pornography in America
today. A physical change was made in a culture with no commentary, no
cultural change, just "it's better" "it's cleaner" (NOT true) "You have no
choice" (often WAS true).
Sandra
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
Saga
There are many forms of female circumcision, one form is the removal of only
the prepuce.
Another is to also remove the glans, but there is still the rest of the
clitoris there. (these are both the 'sunna' circumcision)
Other forms of female mutilation is to cut out the clitoris and scrape the
area, and to close up the area so only a tiny hole for urine and blood to
escape remain.
The case I was remembering they only removed the prepuce.
clitorectomies were done in the US up to the early 1900s to cure
"nymphomania" (any interest in sex) and was a respected medical procedure.
There was even a doctor in the 70s offering female circumcision (I believe
he was actually cutting the glans) in Ohio to increase sexual satisfaction
for the woman... it never caught on, obviously, so it [robably didn't work
as he advertised .
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Sterling Wall [mailto:elizabeth@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 3:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Unschooling-dotcom] Religion and Mutilation (was
Vaccinations/Circumcision)
Female circumcision is NOT the same thing as male circumcision. In Female
circumcision *all* ability to reach orgasm is erased. There is NO clitoris
at all after female circumcision. In most cases, women who have had a
circumcision experience pain at every instance of intercourse for the rest
of their life. The equivalent would not be removing the foreskin but rather
removing the entire glans. Circumcision is not snipping off the "tip" of a
penis, but rather snipping off a bit of skin that *covers* the tip of the
penis.
- elizabeth
"What we need are more people who specialize in the impossible."
-- Theodore Roethke, poet
Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
the prepuce.
Another is to also remove the glans, but there is still the rest of the
clitoris there. (these are both the 'sunna' circumcision)
Other forms of female mutilation is to cut out the clitoris and scrape the
area, and to close up the area so only a tiny hole for urine and blood to
escape remain.
The case I was remembering they only removed the prepuce.
clitorectomies were done in the US up to the early 1900s to cure
"nymphomania" (any interest in sex) and was a respected medical procedure.
There was even a doctor in the 70s offering female circumcision (I believe
he was actually cutting the glans) in Ohio to increase sexual satisfaction
for the woman... it never caught on, obviously, so it [robably didn't work
as he advertised .
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Sterling Wall [mailto:elizabeth@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 3:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Unschooling-dotcom] Religion and Mutilation (was
Vaccinations/Circumcision)
Female circumcision is NOT the same thing as male circumcision. In Female
circumcision *all* ability to reach orgasm is erased. There is NO clitoris
at all after female circumcision. In most cases, women who have had a
circumcision experience pain at every instance of intercourse for the rest
of their life. The equivalent would not be removing the foreskin but rather
removing the entire glans. Circumcision is not snipping off the "tip" of a
penis, but rather snipping off a bit of skin that *covers* the tip of the
penis.
- elizabeth
"What we need are more people who specialize in the impossible."
-- Theodore Roethke, poet
Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[email protected]
I quote Elizabeth Sterling Wall, who wrote:
nicking the hood of the clitoris through to scraping the genital area
smooth and suturing the remaining hole closed.
grandmothers, because girls have been circumcised for thousands of years in
their communities.
I know a pair of sisters from Kenya, both of whom are circumcised. Their
parents are a dentist and a social worker, not "backbush" or "ignorant."
The older is married to an American GI and plans to take any girl children
home to be properly circumcised; obviously she will be able to have the
boys done here.
intact, would in the adult man have measured about 15 square inches if
unfolded & laid out flat. It is the removal of a structure which protects
and lubricates the surface of the penis, which is supposed to have the
texture of the inside of a mouth or vagina, not the tenure similar to the
palm of a hand. Circumcision causes the loss of all of these things:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/lost.html
>Female circumcision is NOT the same thing as male circumcision. In FemaleNo, not in EVERY case of female circumcision. There are degrees, from only
>circumcision *all* ability to reach orgasm is erased. There is NO clitoris
>at all after female circumcision.
nicking the hood of the clitoris through to scraping the genital area
smooth and suturing the remaining hole closed.
> In most cases, women who have had aYet it continues to be done, with the complicity of mothers and
>circumcision experience pain at every instance of intercourse for the rest
>of their life.
grandmothers, because girls have been circumcised for thousands of years in
their communities.
I know a pair of sisters from Kenya, both of whom are circumcised. Their
parents are a dentist and a social worker, not "backbush" or "ignorant."
The older is married to an American GI and plans to take any girl children
home to be properly circumcised; obviously she will be able to have the
boys done here.
>The equivalent would not be removing the foreskin but ratherNo, not in every case.
>removing the entire glans.
>Circumcision is not snipping off the "tip" of aNo, it is not. It is the removal of a structure that, had it been left
>penis, but rather snipping off a bit of skin that *covers* the tip of the
>penis.
intact, would in the adult man have measured about 15 square inches if
unfolded & laid out flat. It is the removal of a structure which protects
and lubricates the surface of the penis, which is supposed to have the
texture of the inside of a mouth or vagina, not the tenure similar to the
palm of a hand. Circumcision causes the loss of all of these things:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/lost.html
[email protected]
Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions toward Infant Male
Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in
Africa.
By Hanny Lightfoot-Klein
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
Another thought: even if FGM is absolutely, undisputably "worse" than MGM,
that's rather like the difference between being hit with a fist or an open
hand. Since it's "worse" if my husband punches me, is it then ok if my
friend's husband slaps or backhands her?
Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in
Africa.
By Hanny Lightfoot-Klein
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
Another thought: even if FGM is absolutely, undisputably "worse" than MGM,
that's rather like the difference between being hit with a fist or an open
hand. Since it's "worse" if my husband punches me, is it then ok if my
friend's husband slaps or backhands her?