Post by magnulus Post by Briar Rabbit
Fellatio is something
experienced much less by uncircumcised men as there are few women able
to stand both the stink and the vile taste.
Either way you slice it you are a loser.
Some people make the same arguements in favor of female circumcision, AKA,
female genital mutilation. "It's more hygenic", "the opposite sex likes it
better", whatever. All rationalizations for a procedure that violates
another human beings rights and serves no medical function.
Circumcision results in morphological changes of the glans.
Keratinization in response to irritation. Normally, keratinization is not
usually considered healthy for mucous membranes. But this is suppossed to
be the "benefit" of circumcision.
If preventing a slight chance of disease is the goal of circumcision, why
don't we excise the breasts off all women as well? Nobody has ever
explained why, despite the fact nearly half of all American males are
circumcised, and many Africans are as well, why AIDS spreads equally well
across the globe. The only thing that stops AIDS is abstinence and
protected sex. Advocating circumcision to prevent AIDS is an invitation
for people to practice unsafe sex.
Circumcision was promoted in the US because it was viewed as a way to keep
children from masturbating (it was also carried out on women at the same
time). Maimonodes noted that circumcision reduces sexual desire several
centuries ago, and modern medical literature suggests circumcision reduces
sexual response. So clearly the goal is to alter the male sexual organ for
the purposes of diminishing sexual desire or responsiveness. Not very
different from the common rationale given for female circumcision by those
that defend it.
Thanks for the long reply Kenny, seems to indicate that this issue
really gets up your nose.
Anyway you slice it, the foreskin is prone to emit stomach churning
smells. Its quite disgusting.
Well maybe we are a year or so away from circumcision being introduced
as a public health initiative in previously non-circumcising societies
as one of the many policy measures against HIV infection.
What ever happens and what ever you skin freaks say male circumcision
remains a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of
religious, cultural or medical considerations.
as to FGM.
This connection you skin freaks attempt to "work" between FGM and male
circumcision is another deceit which you continue to perpetuate.
From the fgm.org web site from 2001 we find that women reject the
association of male circumcision with FGM. They are clearly no
supporters of male circumcision but boy have they got onto what you skin
freaks are up to.
Subject: FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001
Recently a member of a male anti-circumcision organization wrote a
letter to my local editor addressing the issue of circumcision. While
truthfully stating the fact that all forms of circumcision performed on
minors are a violation of human rights and medical ethics, the writer
was gravely misleading and self serving in equating Female Genital
Mutilation ("female circumcision") with male circumcision. Furthermore,
his choice of wording gave the mistaken impression that FGM has been
both adequately addressed and "solved."
Male circumcision is an unnecessary procedure performed for conformist,
hygienic and cosmetic reasons. With female "circumcision," these reasons
are often cited to mollify critics and, after thousands of years, have
become accepted superficially. The main reason, however, that young
girls are sexually mutilated, is to ensure their virginity and chastity
by severely damaging or entirely inhibiting their ability to enjoy
sexual relations. This is to prepare them to become "proper wives." It
is done because men insist, no matter how promiscuous themselves, on
virginal, "circumcised" brides. No such correlation exists with male
circumcision. No boy is circumcised to "keep him virginal" until
marriage, or with the deliberate intent decrease his sexual appetite. In
addition, as males, boys exist as part of the status quo, while girls
still struggle for basic rights.
Female genital mutilation is performed to prepare a woman for proper
marriage, and ranges from clitoridectomy, to the hacking, slicing or
burning off of all external female genitalia (excision), and
infibulation, where the girl's entire outer genitals are sliced off,
with the resulting wound bound together with thorn, thread, cowhide
thong or sutures. Her legs are then lashed together for 1-6 weeks while
she heals. Often water is refused her to discourage urination. She is
sewn almost completely shut, leaving small (match head size), inadequate
openings for passage of urine and menses. This is mostly done under less
than sterile circumstances, with rudimentary instruments (razor, knife,
glass, tin can) and no anesthesia. Girls are generally subjected to this
between the ages of 3 to 15 years of age, although it varies
significantly among regions and sub-groups. These procedures result in
complications ranging from shock, chronic infection, post traumatic
stress disorders, hemorrhage, severe scarring (both internal and
external genitals), urinary tract problems, incontinence, infertility,
infant/mother mortality, fibroids, fistula, sexual dysfunction,
psychological disturbance, and not infrequently, death. For my
infibulated friends, a simple ob/gyn exam is pure torture, resulting in
days of bleeding and bed rest. For many, even a child-size speculum is
too large and examination and treatment are difficult.
For male circumcision to be equivalent to even the most simple form of
FGM (Type I, clitoridectomy) the head of the penis (not just the
foreskin) would have to be cut off. FGM is no longer limited to African,
Malaysian and Middle Eastern nations and is now not uncommon in the
U.S., Canada and Europe. If a girl's parents object to this practice, it
is not unusual for a girl to be kidnapped and forcibly "circumcised" by
relatives or members of the community. Women who speak out about this
issue are often ostracized or punished. Even for women who do not fear
being ostracized, this is a highly personal and difficult topic to
discuss. This is not the case with male circumcision, which has become
an open and frequent topic on health radio and television shows and
parent support networks, as well as in print and online media.
FGM is only the beginning of women's suffering: a lifetime of endless
labor, early, arranged marriage - often to much older men - and few
basic rights, including the right to education and economic
independence. Even today, girls enjoy few of the freedoms their brothers
take for granted: movies with friends, outings, school field trips, use
of the telephone.
It is highly unethical and reprehensible to appropriate the enormous
suffering of 150 million girls worldwide to attack the very real, but
far less complicated issue of infant male circumcision; to do so
trivializes the disproportionate agony of women. Can male circumcision
not be abolished on it's own lack of merit? Any comparison between the
two is enormously exaggerated, simplified, and overlooks the misogynous
intentions of FGM.
As women we have so many of our own health issues to address - under
funded and under assisted, and a health care system with undervalues and
demoralizes us. We must prioritize ourselves. Some anti-male circ
activists resort to a type of manipulation: women should actively use
their time to support their cause because 'circumcised men are angry
men, and angry men commit more violence.' While it is true that angry
men are often violent men, and that some men are angry about their
circumcisions, it is quite a stretch to blame the long historic and
global fact of violence and oppression against women and girls on the
practice of male circumcision. By their own statistics, anti male circ
activists have noted that America is a lonely hold out in maintaining
this practice, and yet a January 2000 report by Johns Hopkins, based on
a ten year global study, revealed that 1 in 3 women on this planet have
been raped, beaten or otherwise severely abused.
According to anti male circ activists own stats, the majority of these
women are being abused by uncircumcised males. It is a violent nature in
the first place that tends to originate these practices, including
What really needs to happen is that men need to grow up and address
their own health needs by themselves. Consider this: the majority of
capital and resources on this planet is still controlled by men; the
majority of appointed and elected policy makers are still men; the vast
majority of hospital administrators and policy makers are men; the
majority of insurance policy makers (who pay for male circ) are men. Men
have time to design Stealth bombers, run for office, take over
corporations, but cannot schedule the time (often) to book their own
doctor's appointments. The kindest thing women can do for you is to tell
you to grow up. Your Mommies are busy, our plates are full.