Quote by LadyX
I can't speak for those who feel fanatical about either circumcising or not circumcising male infants, nor can I speak on behalf of women who exclusively seek male partners with circumcised penises. I don't come from a place of extreme bias either way.
I have a one-year-old son, he's circumcised. Left to my own devices, I probably would've had him circumcised, but as it happened, his father definitely wanted it as well, so that closed the book on that decision. I don't find anything "barbaric" or dangerous about it, nor do I think it's any sort of stealth power play on the part of females. Anyone who believes that is obviously lingering in the dark corners of conspiracy-land a little too often. It's more common in some parts of the world than others, and is completely unrelated to the practice of "female circumcision". So different, in fact, that it's somewhat of a misnomer to even call them both 'circumcision'.
The "article" you posted was pretty funny though.
So different, or maybe not so different, as the supporters of either one will never concede that what they are doing to their children may b harmful t the, it s always perceived as being good for them. In sub Saharan Africa male cicumcision is performed using the same instruments and techniques as is done to girls and also around the same age as girls as well. In these regions mortality rates among boys due to this procedure vary between 5%-20%, which is higher than that among girls that have a clitorodectomy. This is due to the actual wound itself being far more severe and particularly prone to infections due to the sheer amount of tissue amputated.
Throughout the Indonesian archipelago it is a common procedure to have the absolute very tip of a girls clitoral hood amputated at around 30-40 days old. It is almost always performed inside local hospitals and the Indonesian ministry of health issues specific guidelines on just how much to cut off. The procedure takes only as long as it takes someone to close a pair of scissors, so it is actually immensely less painful and invasive than what is done to boys in the United States, the Indonesian ministry of health has also repeatedly rejected the notion that what they are doing is mutilation, stating that it is actually circumcision and mutilation is something completely different.
So in Africa we have severe forms of genital mutilation being performed by unskilled individuals with contaminated equipment that results in high mortality rates and moderate to severe sexual difficulties for many of the survivors of both genders. In Indonesia we have a procedure that is so quick and uninvasive it is much less painful than getting a vaccine and is usually unnoticeable and in the United States we have a procedure that's true damage and effects are always being debated but is certainly much more severe and invasive in every way than to what is done to girls in Indonesia. If you support the parental right to circumcise a male than do you support a parents right to o something far less severe their daughters?
I suspect that most of the women here would say no, but if you would support It than feel free to correct me, although this gets at the larger issue and the real reasons behind it.
I had only posted that article out of curiosity to see what the responses would be to it, not that I necessarily agreed with it. The real reason behind why many women in the United States support circumcision is due to their own personal sexual preferences. This is the real reason why circumcision had continued and grew to be as popular as it did long after the initial promoters in the form of D.kellog and his associates had gone to the grave. This notion is not new though. In 1988 Williamson et al conducted a survey of new and expecting mothers of their sexual experiences and preferences when it came to their partners circumcision status and compared it with separate surveys on whether or not they had thier sons circumcised. The results of their study showed that the circumcision status of the women's sons correlated exactly with the mothers sexual pretence for circumcised men, even for the women who's partners were not circumcised at the time, as long as they preferred circumcisex men the sons ended up being circumcised.
That is the only official study on the correlation between women's preferences in sexual partners and newborn circumcision to be conducted so far, but from what I have seen and what anyone who has ever examined the absolutely bizarre practice of non religious circumcision in the U.S nearly every single women that has their son circumcised prefers their sexual partner to be circumcised. Many women may deny that this factored into their decision but i have absolutely no doubt that sexual preferences played the greatest role in the decision for most. Even examining the responses in this thread reveals a direct correlation between the women's sexual preference and their general view of the procedure. This is the real reason why taking a knife to the genitals of a boy is viewed so differently in this society than taking a knife to the genitals o a girl.
I also find it interesting that uncircumcised women always seem to feel as if they can speak on behalf of women that have actually experienced having this done to them. I find it interesting because I am fairly certain that they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. The messages and stories that they carry with them are ones that everyone should be able to hear, regardless of how inconvienent it may be for some to actually see the truth behind their actions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfkcN0BG26E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_382674&feature=iv&src_vid=aS1inzYWa0Q&v=WFNhM-F089E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X3mOw-XuUA