"The happiest place on earth"

Get email updates of new posts:        (Delivered by FeedBurner)

Tuesday, December 21, 2021

Links - 21st December 2021 (2 - Genital Mutilation/Circumcision)

Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars | New Scientist - "Sperm competition theory predicts that males will evolve ways to ensure that their sperm, and not another male’s, fertilises a female’s eggs. Genital mutilation, in this view, is just another way to win the sperm war.In some forms of mutilation, the handicap to sperm competition is obvious. There is subincision, for example, where cuts are made to the base of the penis. This causes sperm to be ejaculated from the base rather than the end, and is performed in several Aboriginal Australian societies, says Wilson.In some African and Micronesian cultures, young men have one of their testicles crushed.Male genital mutilation makes it less likely that a male will manage to father a child with another man’s wife... Circumcision is one of the less painful forms of mutilation, but it is also less effective at reducing sperm competition. Wilson suggests, however, that the lack of a foreskin could make insertion or ejaculation slower, meaning brief, illicit sex is less likely to come to fruition and lead to a pregnancy.Younger men, he says, willingly submit to having their reproductive ability reduced because they benefit socially from the older men, by forming alliances, and by gaining access to weapons or tribal lore.The older men have also gone through the ritual, and seen their own reproductive effectiveness reduced. But if a man with, say, four wives wants to ensure that any children his wives produce are his, there is pressure to make sure other men can’t successfully impregnate them.The husband’s own reproductive ability is impaired, but continuous and repeated access to his wives makes up for it, while any genital mutilation is a greater handicap to an interloper trying to sneak brief occasional sex with his wives... Wilson has now tested the idea. If the sperm competition theory is correct, he reasoned, then male genital mutilation should be more common in societies where men tend to have multiple wives, especially those in which the wives live apart from the husband.The mutilation would also probably be carried out in a public setting, witnessed mostly by other men, and performed by a non-relative. Men who refused would face social sanctions. Wilson searched anthropological databases and found that his predictions were borne out: 48% of highly polygynous societies practice some form of male genital mutilation, and in societies in which wives live in separate households that increases to 63%.Only 14% of the monogamous societies in the database practice male genital mutilation.It might also be the case that selection works at a group level, so that societies that enforce mutilation are more stable because of less conflict over paternity"

Circumcision, the ultimate parenting dilemma - "Most US adult men are circumcised, but the number of newborns having the op is falling, and is now below 50% in some states - intensifying the dilemma for parents... Germany was shaken by a court ruling that circumcision of minors was harmful, and a violation of a child's rights. Jews and Muslims were outraged, seeing the ruling as an attack on one of the fundamental parts of their faith. Editorials and opinion pieces in major US newspapers expressed similar outrage and 20 representatives in Congress wrote a letter to the German ambassador in Washington, expressing "deep concern"... Three-quarters of American adult men are circumcised. There are over one million procedures each year, or around one every 30 seconds.But rates are falling, as parents - like Stephen Box and his wife - are opting to break with tradition, and alongside this, an increasingly vocal anti-circumcision movement has emerged.Figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 55-57% of newborn boys in the US are now circumcised in hospital, and the numbers are dropping by around 1% each year... A key turning point came in 1999 when guidelines said the medical case for circumcision (a reduced risk of urinary tract infections and penile cancer) was not strong enough to either recommend routine circumcision of newborn boys, or discourage it... One of the most common reasons given for the surgery is that a father wants his son to look the same as him, or is afraid his child will be teased if left uncircumcised... In the US, the popularity of circumcision dates back 140 years to Dr Lewis Sayre, one of the founders of the American Medical Association, says David Gollaher author of Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery.We think of scientists as very objective, but scientists are peopleBrian Earp, Medical ethicistSayre believed that many medical conditions had their root in a dysfunction in the genital area, and that circumcision could be used to treat a startling array of problems, from depression to mental health issues, syphilis and epilepsy.Circumcision was also promoted as a way of discouraging masturbation, and was regarded as clean and hygienic... Sayre's theories were later debunked, but not before being widely picked up in other English-speaking countries, in particular in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Gollaher says.US troops also took male circumcision to South Korea after WWII, where it remains extremely popular.In the UK, around one-third of men were circumcised just before the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948. But the newly-created NHS ruled that circumcision was not medically necessary, and therefore would not be covered. Rates plummeted after that, says Gollaher.About 9% of men in the UK are now circumcised according to WHO figures (other estimates are slightly higher)... In the US (which has not ratified the UN Convention on Rights of the Child) the anti-circumcision movement - or genital autonomy movement as it sometimes called - has "mushroomed" in the last few years, says Steven Svoboda, founder and executive director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, based in California.This group has so far persuaded 18 US states to stop providing male circumcision as part of Medicaid, the health programme which covers the poor... how can the US paediatricians come to such different conclusions from their Dutch counterparts?... "It ends up being something of a political choice," adds David Gollaher - who points out that US physicians themselves are divided.An organisation called Doctors Opposing Circumcision has around 500 active members in the US, and thousands worldwide, but does not disclose their identities. The group's executive director, John V Geisheker, says many working doctors are afraid to come out against circumcision, fearful that they might lose referrals, the respect of their colleagues, or - and this is a major concern, he says - be accused of anti-Semitism. For medical ethicists the question of circumcision has also shot up the agenda in recent years, says Raanan Gillon, former editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics.Any decision on the rights and wrongs of child circumcision has to balance the rights of the child, with the rights of the parents and the right to religious freedom - and the US puts considerable emphasis on the second and third of these... some argue that religion has acted as a cloak, making male circumcision a no-go area for debate - just as for many years, Westerners were reluctant to condemn female circumcision in countries where it was a cultural tradition. "There are many traditions that are thousands of years old that we've sort of woken up to and said, 'Maybe these are not justifiable any more?'" says the Oxford medical ethicist, Brian Earp... Even within both the Jewish and Muslim communities, there are some who question male circumcision, for example the group Jews Against Circumcision."
Some people claim male circumcision is different from female because female circumcision is to control female sexuality. Hurr

The effect of male circumcision on sexuality - "Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision."
The fact that this was elective circumcision means the participants were self-selected. So a truly random experiment would be expected to show even more overwhelmingly that male genital mutilation has a negative impact on male sexuality

False beliefs predict increased circumcision satisfaction in a sample of US American men - "Critics of non-therapeutic male and female childhood genital cutting claim that such cutting is harmful. It is therefore puzzling that ‘circumcised’ women and men do not typically regard themselves as having been harmed by the cutting, notwithstanding the loss of sensitive, prima facie valuable tissue. For female genital cutting (FGC), a commonly proposed solution to this puzzle is that women who had part(s) of their vulvae removed before sexual debut ‘do not know what they are missing’ and may ‘justify’ their genitally-altered state by adopting false beliefs about the benefits of FGC, while simultaneously stigmatising unmodified genitalia as unattractive or unclean. Might a similar phenomenon apply to neonatally circumcised men? In this survey of 999 US American men, greater endorsement of false beliefs concerning circumcision and penile anatomy predicted greater satisfaction with being circumcised, while among genitally intact men, the opposite trend occurred: greater endorsement of false beliefs predicted less satisfaction with being genitally intact. These findings provide tentative support for the hypothesis that the lack-of-harm reported by many circumcised men, like the lack-of-harm reported by their female counterparts in societies that practice FGC, may be related to holding inaccurate beliefs concerning unaltered genitalia and the consequences of childhood genital modification."

Male Circumcision and the HIV/AIDS Myth - "We now know that penile cancer is only slightly more prevalent in the uncircumcised, and routine circumcision is not the best way to go about preventing it, just as routine double mastectomy in women who are done with breastfeeding (and thus have no remaining physiological need for their breasts) is not a good approach to preventing breast cancer -- which is much more common than penile cancer. We also know that the human papilloma virus (HPV), which also causes genital warts, is the most important risk factor for cancer of the penis -- and genital warts are more easily contracted by circumcised men. Moreover, penile cancer is much less prevalent in countries like Denmark, where circumcision is uncommon, compared to the United States, where between 50-60% of males are circumcised. Advocates of circumcision found more ammunition recently when it was reported that uncircumcised heterosexual males were more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than their circumcised counterparts. The finding, based on studies in Africa, specifically Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa, seemed to show that circumcision reduces the chances of heterosexual men contracting HIV/AIDS from women by up to 60%... how do you go about conducting a randomized, controlled intervention trial looking at HIV infection in circumcised adult men? Probably not the way that these researchers did. First, to be included in the study, men had to be HIV-negative and uncircumcised. The men also had to consent to "avoid sexual contact (except with condom protection) during the 6 weeks following the medicalized circumcision."... the males in the study that underwent circumcision were not only told to abstain from sex for a significant time period after the operation -- reducing their exposure time by six weeks compared to the uncircumcised (control) group -- but told to use condoms, taught how to use them, and educated about their benefits. During this six week period, the men in the uncircumcised group did not have the same restrictions.There also doesn't seem to be any mention of the researchers calling up the circumcised men after six weeks to say, "Okay, time's up. Ease up on the condom use from here on." The possibility that many of these men might have become accustomed to using condoms, armed with knowledge about their benefits, didn't seem to be much of a concern... Casting further doubt on the theory that circumcision prevents HIV transmission is a simple look at the prevalence of circumcision and the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in different parts of the world.As a continent, Africa has the highest percentage of circumcised men, over 60%. Africa also has -- as most people know -- the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS, with South Africa housing the world's largest HIV-infected population. In countries like Nigeria and Kenya, (the latter being one of the countries where the study was conducted) over 80% of males are circumcised, yet they contain the second and fourth largest HIV-infected populations in the world respectively. Among industrialized nations, the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS is in the United States, which has the 10th largest HIV-positive population in the world. And yes, the USA also ranks number one among all industrialized nations in its number and percentage of circumcised men: 56% as of 2003, compared to countries in Europe, where circumcision is markedly less common -- as is the prevalence of HIV/AIDS.Finally, let's address a question that seems to have been largely overlooked: what about the women?Well, last month, The Lancet -- which refused to publish the male circumcision trials due to certain ethical concerns -- published a study led by Dr. Maria Wawer at the Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, concluding that circumcising men did not reduce HIV transmission to their female partners.Actually, it's quite possible that circumcised men are more likely to give their female partners HIV/AIDS than uncircumcised men. Dr. Wawer found that 18% of the women in her study contracted HIV/AIDS from circumcised men, compared to 12% of women who contracted it from uncircumcised men... Even if the researchers in the Africa trials were right, it would take over 70 circumcisions in Africa to prevent 1 case of HIV. If the data were applied to the United States, it would take over 300 circumcisions to prevent one case of HIV. The bottom line remains the same: the best way to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections -- whether you're circumcised, uncircumcised, gay, straight, male or female -- is through education and condom use... A recent study looking at sensitivity of the penis in the circumcised and uncircumcised male found that the five most sensitive areas on the penis are removed at circumcision, and that the keratinized glans on the circumcised penis is less sensitive than the foreskin-protected, mucosa-lined glans on the uncircumcised penis. The skin removed from the penis at circumcision makes up close to 50% of the total penile skin, amounting to 15 square inches in an adult. Even the mildest form of female circumcision is illegal, and very rightly termed female genital mutilation. Male circumcision on the other hand, is demonstrably more severe than some of the milder forms of FGM, but still performed widely. It is still covered by many insurance providers, and Medicaid in most states, despite being completely unnecessary. Suppose for a moment that females who have been circumcised are shown to have a lower risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS. Kind of like it says in this abstract here.How appropriate would it be for a group of researchers to carry out a massive study like the African male circumcision trials for women?How long would it take for Dr. Kevin De Cock at the WHO to recommend female genital mutilation -- even in its mildest form -- as a form of HIV/AIDS prevention?"

Paper: Risk Compensation: When Mass Male Circumcision Fails to Prevent HIV and HSV-2 Infections - "We show evidence of risk compensation that diminishes the protective effect against HIV and HSV-2 infection of male circumcision through a long-term follow-up of a field trial that randomly provided male circumcision to 2,663 adolescent students in Malawi... preventive effects of male circumcision against HIV and HSV-2 infection may diminish if circumcised men are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors... We provide new striking findings which are quite contrary to what previous studies suggested. We find that those who received a more intensive male circumcision offer (and thus high take-up rate), were 34 percent more likely to be infected with HSV-2 than those with less intensive male circumcision offer (and thus low take-up rate). In addition, we do not find significant change in HIV infection.We also find evidence of risk compensation in the long run, which supports our biomarker results: those with the intensive offer are more likely to engage in inconsistent condom use, and are less likely to use a condom in the last sexual intercourse."
In other words, circumcising men to prevent HIV increases it

Philip Davies with MGM bombshell in the House of Commons - "According to a barrister’s opinion, carrying out circumcision on males when there is no medical need—non-therapeutic circumcision—is a crime under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, being at least actual bodily harm if not grievous bodily harm."

Because I Was a Boy: A Personal Account of Foreskin Restoration - "Now that I have a foreskin that is long enough to protect my glans from chafing, I am certainly enjoying sex more. Now that my glans has recovered some sensitivity, receiving oral sex is better than it has ever been for me. One of my partners assures me that my movements when I’m doing the penetration have changed for the better.There are other benefits, not related to sexual gratification, too: I cycle regularly and I now feel my glans moving around in its protective sheath as my legs move up and down instead of being chafed against my clothing; when it’s cold, my penis has a hoodie which keeps my glans warm; and, importantly for me, I no longer see the scar from circumcision on my penis when I am in the nude.The nerves that were severed when I was circumcised as an infant cannot be replaced, though my foreskin restoration has provided me with protection for my glans and improved my appreciation of sex. I was born with a foreskin and I shall die with a foreskin."

Does Female Genital Mutilation Have Health Benefits? The Problem with Medicalizing Morality - "Four members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect of Islam living in Detroit, Michigan have recently been indicted on charges of female genital mutilation (FGM). This is the first time the US government has prosecuted an “FGM” case since a federal law was passed in 1996. The world is watching to see how the case turns out... The term “FGM” is likely to bring to mind the most severe forms of female genital cutting, such as clitoridectomy or infibulation (partial sewing up of the vaginal opening). But the World Health Organization (WHO) actually recognizes four main categories of FGM, covering dozens of different procedures.One of the more “minor” forms is called a “ritual nick.” This practice, which I have argued elsewhere should not be performed on children, involves pricking the foreskin or “hood” of the clitoris to release a drop of blood.Healthy tissue is not typically removed by this procedure, which is often done by trained clinicians in the communities where it is common. Long-term adverse health consequences are believed to be rare.Here is why this matters. Initial, albeit conflicting reports suggest that the Dawoodi Bohra engage in this, or a similar, more limited form of female genital cutting – not the more extreme forms that are often highlighted in the Western media. This fact alone will make things rather complicated for the prosecution. The defense team has already signaled that it will emphasize the “low-risk” aspect of the alleged cutting, claiming that it shouldn’t really count as mutilation. It is, after all, far less invasive than Jewish ritual male circumcision, which is legally allowed on minors in the US, no questions asked.Based on this discrepancy, if attorneys for the Bohra can show a gendered or religious double standard in existing law, the ramifications will be not be small. Either male circumcision will have to be restricted in some way, or “minor” forms of FGM permitted. The outcome either way will be explosive...  it is not actually implausible that certain “mild” forms of FGC, such as neonatal labiaplasty, could reduce the risk of various diseases... If convicted, the Muslim minority defendants face 10 years to life in prison for allegedly practicing a form of FGM that is less physically invasive than other forms of medically unnecessary genital cutting that are legally tolerated in Western countries.I have already mentioned male circumcision. There is also intersex genital “normalization” surgery (which has been brilliantly discussed in this context by Nancy Ehrenreich); supposedly virginity-signaling hymen “repair” surgeries (which I have written about elsewhere); and at least some so-called “cosmetic” female genital operations, which are increasingly being carried out on minors... it is perfectly legal in the United States to perform a circumcision on a male child for any reason. Religion, culture, parental preference—regardless of the motivation, the cutting is tolerated, and you don’t need a medical license to do it.In fact, even ultra-Orthodox Jews who perform an unhygienic “oral suction” form of circumcision, in which the circumciser takes the boy’s penis into his mouth and sucks the wound to staunch the bleeding, are legally permitted to do so without state certification or oversight. This is despite confirmation of more than a dozen cases of herpes transmission, two cases of permanent brain damage, and two infant deaths likely caused by the practice between 2004 and 2012. Those are just the figures for New York City. But still there are no legal restrictions. As the bioethicist Dena Davis has pointed out, “states currently regulate the hygienic practices of those who cut our hair and our fingernails, so why not a baby’s genitals?” She means “baby boy’s” genitals; baby girls’ genitals are protected by law. The Bohra defense team will likely flag these inconsistencies. If ritual male circumcision is not only legally permitted but completely unregulated in the US, they will argue, then how can a procedure that carries fewer risks and is less physically damaging be classified as a federal crime? They will also point to the religious significance of “female circumcision” among the Bohra. They will ask: aren’t religious practices granted strong legal protections in the United States and other Western countries?... It is true that female circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran; but neither is male circumcision. And yet the latter is widely regarded as a “religious” practice not only within Judaism but also Islam. As Alex Myers notes, “if we defer to religious justifications, we shall find that in many cases, the circumcision of female as well as male children could be permitted on this basis.”How could that be so? In her landmark paper entitled, “Male and Female Genital Alteration: A Collision Course with the Law,” Dena Davis notes that “binding religious obligations” can stem from oral traditions and other “extrabiblical sources,” such as rabbinic commentaries or papal encyclicals in the case of Judaism or Christianity. Likewise, “Islam looks to other sources to interpret and supplement Koranic teachings.” One such source is the Hadith—the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed—which is the other major basis for Islamic law apart from the Koran.Both male and female circumcision are mentioned in the Hadith. Based on their reading of the relevant passages, some Muslim authorities state that “circumcision” of both sexes is recommended or even obligatory, while others draw a different conclusion. There is no ultimate authority in Islam to settle such disputes, however, so debate continues to this day... In the West, we seem more or less unfazed by the religiously sanctioned cutting of boys’ genitals; but we go into a panic over less severe procedures performed on the genitals of girls by equally pious parents.In fact, we bend over backwards to convince ourselves that the latter procedures are “not actually religious” by selectively citing scholars who agree with us—as though not being “religious” somehow made a practice less worthy of being respected, or being “religious” made it morally OK. Neither of those propositions follow. Finally, we attribute evil motives to the parents who circumcise their daughters, when the same parents almost invariably also circumcise their sons, sometimes more invasively, and often for identical reasons. (The stereotype that female circumcision is “all about” misogyny and sexual control, while male circumcision is about neither, is one that I, and many other scholars, have deconstructed elsewhere: see here for a fairly short summary. Suffice it to say the claim is not true.) So who are we kidding? The overwhelming majority of American parents who circumcise their sons do it for “cultural” rather than religious reasons, and few seem concerned to bat an eye. Even many Jews who circumcise are committed atheists (and for all I know, so are many Muslims). Although the law may treat “religion” as a special, separate category, the religious versus “cultural” status of male or female genital cutting is not what drives our different moral judgments... Removing any healthy tissue from a child’s body will confer “some” health benefits: tissue that has been excised can no longer host a cancer, become infected, or pose any other problem to its erstwhile owner. But as the bioethicist Eike-Henner Kluge has noted, if this logic were accepted more generally, “all sorts of medical conditions would be implicated” and we would find ourselves “operating non-stop on just about every part of the human body.” Alarmingly, one place we might start operating is the pediatric vulva. Compared to the penis, the external female genitalia provide if anything “an even more hospitable environment to bacteria, yeasts, viruses, and so forth, such that removing moist folds of tissue (with a sterile surgical instrument) might very well reduce the risk of associated problems.”In countries where female circumcision is relatively common, this is exactly what is claimed for the procedure. Cited health benefits include “a lower risk of vaginal cancer … fewer infections from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris, and protection against herpes and genital ulcers.”Moreover, at least two studies by Western scientists have shown a negative correlation between female circumcision and HIV. The authors of one of the studies, both seasoned statisticians who expected to find the opposite relationship, described their findings as a “significant and perplexing inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV seropositivity.”...
'instead of a research program to study the possible harms of circumcision, [the WHO] funds research into the benefits and advantages of the operation. In neither case, however, is the research open-ended: in relation to women the search is for damage, in relation to men it is for benefit; and since the initial assumptions influence the outcomes, these results are duly found.'...
It is currently illegal in Western countries to conduct a properly controlled scientific study to determine whether a “mild,” sterilized form of female genital cutting carried out in infancy or early childhood confers some degree of protection against disease.But if anti-FGM campaigners and organizations such as the WHO continue to play the “no health benefits” card as a way of deflecting comparisons to male circumcision, it will not be long before medically-trained supporters of the practice in other countries begin to do the necessary research. The history of male circumcision shows how this could happen... A large proportion of the current medical literature purporting to show health benefits for male circumcision has been generated by doctors who were themselves circumcised at birth—often for religious reasons—and who have cultural, financial, or other interests in seeing the practice preserved...  
In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) controversially concluded that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweighed the risks (this is the “glaring exception” I said I’d come back to). Their conclusion was puzzling, since they did not have a method for assigning weights to individual benefits or risks, much less an accepted mechanism by which the two could be compared.They were also missing the denominator to their equation. On page 772 of their report they state that, due to limitations with the existing data, “the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.”So how could we know they are outweighed by the benefits?In an unprecedented move, the AAP was rebuked by senior physicians, ethicists, and representatives from national medical societies based in the UK, Canada, and mainland Europe, who argued that the findings were likely culturally biased. The AAP Circumcision Task Force later acknowledged that the benefits were only “felt” to outweigh the risks. It came down to a subjective judgment."

End child circumsision : MensRights - "Protester: "My Body My Choice"
*Protester changes into scrubs*
Medical worker: "So, planning to circumcise?""

Video of sobbing boy begging for foreskin back after circumcision goes viral - "The incident, filmed in Malaysia, was posted online by his mother, Miera Elyia Zsalyca, and it has since gone viral.In the footage, the crying boy is seen begging for his foreskin back and asking his family members if it could be glued back on."

Pleasure and Orgasm in Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) - "The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm; the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in lubrication and pain... Our study suggests that FGM/C also in this group of women has no negative impact on psychosexual life... The cultural meaning of the FGM/C in the samples of the present study was often positively connoted: a girl who goes through this dangerous experience becomes heroic, honorable, and special... the vast majority of our sample (group A) reported feelings of happiness the day after the mutilation and showed pride (group A, N = 57; 41.60%) for their present condition... Body image/genital image is culturally influenced: women in the present study considered the intact genitals awful: group A, 16.79% (23); group B, 12.82% (7); dirty: group A, 18.25% (25); group B did choose this option. They considered women with intact genitals not fully female: group A, 3.65% (5); group B, 17.95% (10); they thought that intact women have a highly developed sexuality: group A, 45.26% (62); group B, 30.77% (18); they were sure that uncircumcised women cannot be faithful... Fifty-eight young ladies were living in Italy but were circumcised/infibulated in their country during childhood. As children in their own country, they experienced positive feelings about FGM/C, a sense of female completeness, they lived in a setting of social acceptance, felt family love and thought that FGM/C was “something that testified beauty and courage”. Growing up in Western countries, their experience was transformed and given negative meanings: female mutilation, social stigma; they were depicted as victims of family violence and barbarity. Their sense of beauty changed into ugliness. The social stigmatization and the negative messages from the media regarding their “permanently destroyed” sexuality provoke negative expectations on the possibility of experiencing sexual pleasure and provoke negative feelings about their own body image. The social criticism and the negative cultural meaning regarding their painful experience cause distortion of their cultural values and they undergo a sort of “mental/ psychological” infibulation which could result in iatrogenic sexual dysfunction... the Ethiopian immigrants in Sweden included in their study seem to have adopted a more Western view of circumcision as mutilation, and express their sense of having lost something because of the operation. Ahmadu noted in her study that among women not achieving orgasm, there are women who had been educated in the West and who had heard criticism of the practice of mutilation. These women became very angry about what had been done to them... In FGM/C women, when their culture makes them live their mutilation as a positive condition, orgasm is experienced. When there is a cultural conflict, the frequency of the orgasm is reduced even if the anatomical and physiological conditions make it possible."
This suggests that female circumcision can actually increase female sexual pleasure. This has an intriguing link with the Islamic hadiths cited by Muslims in Calgary about it increasing female pleasure
There are obvious parallels with men who have been circumcised
Demonising female circumcision as hurting female sexuality makes it... a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is probably the article I saw summarised as saying that circumcised women who "knew" that female circumcision was supposed to hurt their sex life were less able to orgasm than other circumcised women who didn't "know" this)

Pricking in the African Diaspora: Current Evidence and Recurrent Debates - "Pricking is here defined as a practice where the clitoris or the surrounding tissue is pricked with a sharp object, but where no tissue is removed. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies pricking—along with other practices—as female genital cutting (FGC) type IV. The practice of pricking is also referred to as ‘symbolic circumcision’, ‘nicking’, ‘incision’, ‘FGC type IV’, or ‘sunna circumcision’. However, sometimes, these terminologies include practices where tissue is removed. For example, removal of tissue the ‘size of a rice grain’ has been labelled pricking. Also the term ‘sunna circumcision’ can, at least in practice, involve a wide range of practices in addition to pricking, such as clitoridectomy, cutting, and scarification... In some countries, such as Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, and Mali, more extensive types of FGC appear to be replaced with less extensive types... In addition to pricking in African countries, where it is often described as part of a change to less extensive forms of FGC, pricking has been documented as a traditional practice in some Asian countries, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and India. Here, it has been described as an important social tradition with religious importance... In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics made a statement that a ritual nick is not physically harmful, less extensive than newborn male circumcision, and could be offered as a compromise solution to build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities... a medicalised pricking is understood as involving no or minimal risks and can as such be used as a harm reduction strategy to protect girls from undergoing more extensive forms of FGC... all these suggestions have been met with strong opposition by advocates of a zero tolerance of any form of FGC, who precisely oppositely proclaim that also pricking is ‘child abuse’, represents gender discrimination, and is a violation of children’s rights and bodily integrity... in the Swedish Act prohibiting FGC, it is stated that (translated from Swedish, emphasis not original): ‘Operations on the external female genitals with the aim to mutilate them or produce other permanent changes in them (genital mutilation) must not take place’... In Australia, the three individuals who were convicted for being involved in arranging pricking on two girls were later acquitted on all grounds as no physical alteration of the genitals could be seen... differing laws on male circumcision versus FGC, in which girls are legally protected from all forms of non-therapeutic genital cutting while boys are not, is argued by Darby to represent a gender bias where girls are favoured over boys"

It's bad to prick girls even though it doesn't harm them and is less significant than ear piercing. But it's good to cut off boys' flesh
Presumably in Sweden sex change surgery on women should be illegal. Or maybe trans activists define them as male genitals, so it's okay

Prevalence and Risk Determinants of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) in West African Female Prostitutes - "Excision  is  most  frequently  a  nonsterile  clitoridectomy   performed   at   puberty.   Considering  all  women   who  had   undergoneexcision,  the  percentage  who  were  HIV-2 seropositive   in   Dakar   (7.1   percent)   and Ziguinchor  (21.4  percent)  was  lower  than the  percentage  who  were  HIV-2  positive  in the study  population  (10.0 percent and  38.1percent, respectively). In univariate analysis, a  history  of excision  was considered  protective  for  HIV-2  infection   in  Dakar"
This is the third study I've found (the others being The Association between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and the Risk of HIV/AIDS in Kenyan Girls and Women (15-49 Years) and Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: for Better or for Worse?) showing a link between female genital cutting/female genital mutilation/female circumcision and a lower risk of having HIV. But of course only male circumcision can be considered as a way to fight HIV

Bride Wants Fiancé To Get Circumcised Before Their Wedding - "his fiancée told him that he should get circumcised before their wedding later this year. (That's right -- she told him; she didn't ask.)"I said no and she straight up told me that 'it’s not a choice,'" he wrote. "We argued for a bit and she said that I wouldn’t be attracted to her if she had an 'outie' vagina with 'extra skin' hanging (her words, not mine)... "Every day she sends me articles talking about the benefits of circumcision, that it’s totally healthy/safe and why I should do it," he wrote. "She says that 'civilized' men get circumcised and that 'we’re not like those Europeans.' The thing is, she’s mixed race (and half French) and grew up in France so I don’t understand her thought process here," he added."Her ex was French but she repeatedly said that she dislikes French people and wants me to be 'better' than that," he went on. "According to her, that includes getting a circumcision."... "She got very upset, calling me 'selfish' and 'heartless' and basically told me to [expletive] off"... The two ended up having sex later that night, and right in the middle of the action, guess who had an overwhelming urge to talk about circumcision?"It felt very manipulative and when I told her that this is not the right time, she accused me of not loving her and actually started crying," he wrote. "Since she rarely cries this didn’t seem genuine."

Smegma - "Circumcision will not abolish smegma secretion, but it will reduce the chance of its accumulations, circumcised boy may still accumulates smegma, if it is not cleaned and washed frequently... Circumcision will not stop smegma produc-tion or ameliorate its effect, if any, circumcision will just help in exposing smegma for regular wash. Smegma will continue to produce and even it may accumulates in circumcised boys if not cared."
Theory: American men keep making dick cheese jokes because they are disgusting and don't clean their penises because they think they're circumcised so they don't need to, and seeing how disgusting their pensies are they justify their circumcision by saying their penises would be even dirtier if they were intact

Fine‐touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis - "The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."

blog comments powered by Disqus
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes