GA - Female circumcision in Atlanta

[southcitymom]

Most research indicates that the miniscule increase in infections in uncircumsized vs. circumsized males is most often a result of caretaker error (ie - yanking back the foreskin to try to clean it at too young an age, etc..).

Also, these three articles/studies indicate that the trauma of being cut influences the bond a child has with his mother. Also, there's some data regarding early infant pain stimuli and later development.

http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/marshall1/

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/kroeger1/

It's interesting reading.

 

[2sisters]

It never occured to me not to circumsise my son. If it was for cleanliness and health reason I was all for it. I know the foreskin had to be moved to keep the area clean and, quite frankly, it is hard enought to get kids to take a bath, let alone clean under their foreskin. I had a friend whos son got some sort of infection from that and he wasn't circumsised. I think it is split down the middle on the issue of male circumsising but that isn't the issue her. that little girls father abused and mutilated her.If that wasn't child abuse then I don't know what is.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Here's an intriguing opinion I found on male circumcision. This person thinks it should be illegal:

"80% of the world is intact. Every mammal on earth (except bats) has evolved a retractile foreskin. The only countries that circumcise most minors for non-religious reasons are the US and South Korea (which got hooked during US occupation).

The foreskin contains over half the sensual nerve endings. Lack of a foreskin causes the glans to get dried and caloused. The frenulum, which is removed or crushed in circ is the neurological homologue to the clitoris. With a foreskin, a man and his partner can enjoy the exquisite rolling/gliding frictionless mode of stimulation.

When an infant is born the foreskin is fused to the glans the way fingernails are attached."

I too think it should be illegal

 

[Floh]

Last I heard it happens to THOUSANDS of baby boys every year right here in the USA. Where is your outrage about that?

If parents can legally mutilate their sons, why can't they touch their daughters? Equal rights and all that jazz................

But surely the topic of this thread is female genital mutilation? why make the topic about something else, for goodness sake? :doh:

are you agreeing to female genital mutilation?

 

[Linda7NJ]

But surely the topic of this thread is female genital mutilation? why make the topic about something else, for goodness sake? :doh:

are you agreeing to female genital mutilation?

I am against CHILD genital mutilation. IMO it's the same thing and that was my point.

 

[southcitymom]

It never occured to me not to circumsise my son. If it was for cleanliness and health reason I was all for it. I know the foreskin had to be moved to keep the area clean and, quite frankly, it is hard enought to get kids to take a bath, let alone clean under their foreskin. I had a friend whos son got some sort of infection from that and he wasn't circumsised. I think it is split down the middle on the issue of male circumsising but that isn't the issue her. that little girls father abused and mutilated her.If that wasn't child abuse then I don't know what is.

As a matter of fact, you shouldn't mess with the foreskin at all until it starts to retract on its own. My sons are 4 and 6 (and you are right - it is hard to even get them to bathe! ) and I've never touched their foreskin and they've had no problems at all. My husband told me that he'll show them how to keep things clean when they are older and it retracts naturally.

Unfortunately most American doctors tell parents who don't circumsize their sons to make sure they pull the foreskin of their young sons back and keep things clean. Poppycock! If you come from a tradition of non-circumcision, you know better. Most American doctors don't come from that tradition.

I'm not trying to change anyone's feelings because that's probably a lost cause - most people want their sons to look like their fathers and, in this country, that usually means circumcision.

But I do think it's fair to discuss male circumcision on a thread regarding female circumcision. Many people believe male circumcision to be legal abuse and mutilation and there is plenty data to support that viewpoint.

 

[southcitymom]

I too think it should be illegal

I hold out my thoughts on that, but very much respect your viewpoint. I wish people were better educated, but it really is presented as just "the next thing you do to a boy" here in the states.

The whole hygeine thing is a load of bunk, but people are constantly told otherwise.

When my sons were born the thought of saying welcome to the world by cutting or burning the most sensitive part of their bodies off was anathema to me. But I was in a no-brainer situation - my husband is uncut. Would I have held my ground if my husband had been cut and had strong feelings about it? I can't answer that.

I have a good friend whose first son is circumsized but her second son is not. Her husband is. When her first son was born, she just did it because that's what you do. But she had studied up by the time her second came around and she said "no way." I really respect that she and her husband came to that decision and don't care that everyone looks alike in that family.

After all - circumsized or not - they all look the same when they're saying hello!

 

[Floh]

I am against CHILD genital mutilation. IMO it's the same thing and that was my point.

I am too. sorry, but i believe Male Genital Mutilation should be outlawed just as much as Female Genital Mutilation and am astonished male circumcision is so prevelant in the states quite, quite apart from 'religious' reasoning. so what i felt is it was worth a separate thread - away from this particular case.

but it doesn't matter that this thrad has spun off. that's what happens, i suppose.

 

[scandi]

"After all - circumsized or not - they all look the same when they're saying hello!"

I loved that, Southcitymom!


Female circumcision has never been addressed publicly in the USA because it is not a standard practice. I think now that other societies that practice this are immigrating here is why we are learning about it. So should America over ride a social practice of one's heritage by passing a law against it? I'm not in favor of that much governmental control. I think people need to be educated about the practice, so these people that plan to do it to their little girls will re-think the matter.

For males it has been an accepted practice. When I had my boys my doctors didn't even ask me what I wanted done. So the first boy was snipped short and I worried about it for years. Like I said before, with my second they only removed half the amount of skin they normally do because I requested it. I had never been told it didn't have to be done, and of course had never seen an uncircumcised guy!

Education. That's the answer, and they should do a media blast about it - pointing out there is no need to do it. And doctors should tell every pregnant woman it is not necessary - although they make money doing it, so fat chance of that happening.

I know the Egyptians did it, but they walked funny too! LOL

Scandi

 

[southcitymom]

"After all - circumsized or not - they all look the same when they're saying hello!"

I loved that, Southcitymom!


Female circumcision has never been addressed publicly in the USA because it is not a standard practice. I think now that other societies that practice this are immigrating here is why we are learning about it. So should America over ride a social practice of one's heritage by passing a law against it? I'm not in favor of that much governmental control. I think people need to be educated about the practice, so these people that plan to do it to their little girls will re-think the matter.

For males it has been an accepted practice. When I had my boys my doctors didn't even ask me what I wanted done. So the first boy was snipped short and I worried about it for years. Like I said before, with my second they only removed half the amount of skin they normally do because I requested it. I had never been told it didn't have to be done, and of course had never seen an uncircumcised guy!

Education. That's the answer, and they should do a media blast about it - pointing out there is no need to do it. And doctors should tell every pregnant woman it is not necessary - although they make money doing it, so fat chance of that happening.

I know the Egyptians did it, but they walked funny too! LOL

Scandi

Great post, Scandi. As your experience shows, many many people just don't know that to NOT circumcize is an option. Kudos to you for doing things different with your second little fellow.

Like male circumcision, female circumcision also has its roots in religious tradition. And we as a nation are being forced to come face-to-face with it as people immigrate here and want to do what they have always done. We perceive female circumcision as unspeakably barbaric. Yet, circumsizing our boys is de rigueur.

In fact, we disconnect even further by calling what they do to their girls female gential mutilation, not circumcision. Does the word circumcision hit too close to home for us? In utero, the foreskin (not the penis, the foreskin) and the clitoris start out as the exact same thing - what you end up with depends on the xx, xy situation.

You also bring up the excellent point that doctors and hospitals make lots of money from this little procedure, so I don't hear them crying "Education! Education!" any time soon. It's way too easy to frighten people with the hygiene word and keep the dollars rolling in.

 

[angelmom]

You also bring up the excellent point that doctors and hospitals make lots of money from this little procedure, so I don't hear them crying "Education! Education!" any time soon. It's way too easy to frighten people with the hygiene word and keep the dollars rolling in.

Yes, I'm sure that fee for circumcision is paying for their Mercedes.

My doctor was very open with me that it was a personal choice, and that there were reasons for and against. The AAP also takes no stance, as there is an increased risk for penile cancer with uncircumcised males. I let my husband make the decision.

As for the horrible pain, I watched my son sleep peacefully and was upset that they were about to wake him for that. Just then, the doctor came in and told us he had just completed the surgery. So much for his agony.

If you're comparing that to taking a pair of scissors to a toddler girl's clitoris, then I don't know what to think.

 

[southcitymom]

Yes, I'm sure that fee for circumcision is paying for their Mercedes.

My doctor was very open with me that it was a personal choice, and that there were reasons for and against. The AAP also takes no stance, as there is an increased risk for penile cancer with uncircumcised males. I let my husband make the decision.

As for the horrible pain, I watched my son sleep peacefully and was upset that they were about to wake him for that. Just then, the doctor came in and told us he had just completed the surgery. So much for his agony.

If you're comparing that to taking a pair of scissors to a toddler girl's clitoris, then I don't know what to think.

Perhaps you didn't read my post which stated that it was patently, criminally wrong for the 2-year-old girl's father to cut her clitoris off with scissors (probably not sterilized) and no anesthesia. It would be just as wrong to do the same thing to a 2-year old boy's foreskin.

 

[SieSie]

This is horrific!!! Thanks for the link at the beginning, I found the following information:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, using figures from the 1990 Census, estimated that 168,000 girls and women in the U.S. had undergone the procedure or were at risk of being subjected to it.

The State Department estimates that up to 130 million women worldwide had undergone circumcision as of 2001. Knives, razors or even sharp stones are usually used, according to a 2001 department report. The tools often are not sterilized, and often, many girls are circumcised at the same ceremony, leading to infection.

It is unknown how many girls have died from the procedure, either during the cutting or from infections, or years later in childbirth.

Nightmares, depression, shock and feelings of betrayal are common psychological side effects, according to the federal report.

More at link: CNN

 

[BhamMama]

The sad facts are, boys are usually treated with respect in this manner. Even if you don't agree with the procedure, it's done under sterile conditions, usually by parents who trust the doctor and they pay for the service.

Little girls are still considered chattel that one must 'fix' before she morally can't, or won't, control her bodily urges. Done under the most filthy conditions with the least amount of thoughts of love in how it's done or why. Though they still may pay for the service, most take it into thier own hands, it's just a girl after all.

In Egypt, Africa and they hold down girls as old at 12 and raggedly sever the clitoris with anything handy, a dull piece of glass, a rusty, unclean can lid or a dull knife.

In my research today I came across something. Female circumcision is the removal of the hood, Clitoridectomy is the removal of the entire clitoris and labia minora. The most severe is the Female Pharaonic Circumcision, where they remove the entire clitoris, labia minora, labia majora and then they scrape or cut the vulva and sew it shut. Sometimes with thread, sometimes with thorns. leaving an opening for urine, menses and I'm assuming sex, since I found no information on girls being cut open just for that purpose but did read more than once that it was for increased pleasure for the husband. She is cut open to allow birth then sewn back shut after childbirth.

I read in some cases where it was thought that the hood over the clitoris should be removed for troubles of the mind, to increase sexual pleasure for the female, to cure her of some physical illness and for looks.

The only reasons stated for the other more horrible procedures were for the benefit of a man.

I've been doing some soul searching because while I do believe as my religion has taught me that circumcision in boys, for our family at least, was the right thing to do, how can I think that when other families feel the same when they do this to a girl. Is it because more care is taken with the boy that I feel that? It can't be because boys have been through this for thousands of years so it's acceptable, so have girls, but I find it repugnant. Is it because while boys will have diminished sexual feelings, the girls will have even less? Is it because I feel that in girls it's less a respect or religious respect thing and more as a control issue for keeping her chaste and she has to be done where I could have chosen not to for my boys?

I'm very confused on the whole thing because I did have my boys done with great pomp and ceremony (with many people watching no less) and with very little thought of anything except for what it meant religiously.

 

[GlitchWizard]

Unfortunately most American doctors tell parents who don't circumsize their sons to make sure they pull the foreskin of their young sons back and keep things clean. Poppycock! If you come from a tradition of non-circumcision, you know better. Most American doctors don't come from that tradition.

"Poppycock" used in this thread made me giggle!

I'm so glad your sons didn't have a problem, but I do know of a man whose mother didn't do the foreskin cleaning thing and the foreskin didn't retract - it grew into where it was and was a nightmare to keep clean. He was so humiliated and embarassed that at 36 years old, he took a knife to it in his bathtub and it's all scarred up now.

I guess it's "hit or miss" is why doctors give that advice. Just for your additional information, that's all this is.

 

[nanandjim]

The way that I interpret the article is that this baby as well as other female babies in Africa, Egypt and Somalia have their clitorises crudely and sometimes unsanitarily removed as a way to preserve their virginity.

IMO, it is done, because in these parts of the world, women are still possessions and have no rights. Women just are not valued as much as men are.

This practice is cruel and inhumane. It is not the same thing as removing foreskin from a male infant in a hospital by a doctor. As mentioned by other posters, this is oftentimes done to prevent infection in a male. It certainly doesn't keep a male from enjoying sex.

Conversely, it would keep a female from truly enjoying sex. That's one of the reasons that I believe the custom exists. The men who perform this procedure probably are of the mindset that, if the clitoris is removed, women will be more likely to remain virgins; thereby greatly enhancing their chances of being married off.

 

[2sisters]

The way that I interpret the article is that this baby as well as other female babies in Africa, Egypt and Somalia have their clitorises crudely and sometimes unsanitarily removed as a way to preserve their virginity.

IMO, it is done because in these parts of the world, where women are still possessions and have no rights. Women just are not valued as much as men are.

This practice is cruel and inhumane. It is not the same thing as removing foreskin from a male infant in a hospital by a doctor. As mentioned by other posters, this is oftentimes done to prevent infection in a male. It certainly doesn't keep a male from enjoying sex.

Conversely, it would keep a female from truly enjoying sex. That's one of the reasons that I believe the custom exists. The men who perform this procedure probably are of the mindset that if the clitoris is removed, women will be more likely to remain virgins; thereby greatly enhancing their chances of being married off.

exactly, the 2 are completely different. Circumsicion isn't as cruel and inhumane as this. Circumsicion is snipping some skin off, female genital mutilation is cutting off your entire clitoris. male circumsicion is a choice made by parents.Choosing to do it or not to do it doesn't make you an awful person, I got the impression from a few on here that parents who circumsise their sons are as cruel and the pepole who take part in female circumsision. I chose to have my son circumsised and there were no adverse reactions, he never uttered a cry except when he was given the shot of lidocane, it healed great within 2 days, he never was bothered by the aftercare, cleaning the area didn't bother him either. I was worried going in to it though b/c of the pain aspect but he took it really well, but all babies are different, the one right behind him may have had a hard time with it.

 

[southcitymom]

The way that I interpret the article is that this baby as well as other female babies in Africa, Egypt and Somalia have their clitorises crudely and sometimes unsanitarily removed as a way to preserve their virginity.

IMO, it is done, because in these parts of the world, women are still possessions and have no rights. Women just are not valued as much as men are.

This practice is cruel and inhumane. It is not the same thing as removing foreskin from a male infant in a hospital by a doctor. As mentioned by other posters, this is oftentimes done to prevent infection in a male. It certainly doesn't keep a male from enjoying sex.

Conversely, it would keep a female from truly enjoying sex. That's one of the reasons that I believe the custom exists. The men who perform this procedure probably are of the mindset that, if the clitoris is removed, women will be more likely to remain virgins; thereby greatly enhancing their chances of being married off.

Female circumcision is absolutely done to control the females. By eliminating their ability to enjoy sex, they make sure that fathers won't lose face by daughters being promiscuous and husbands won't lose face by cheating wives. This is custom based on tribal religions.

They believe it's important to their gods that women remain chaste and virtuous, and they often see themselves as doing their females a great service with this procedure. They see it as their duty. I have watched shows that interviewed women who felt the procedure was in their best interest as well as women who did not and who suffered.

Obviously, most of us don't think this way in America anymore (though we did in the past - by using chastity belts to control married and unmarried women alike). I wonder if we would be more comfortable with female circumcision if the procedure were done soon after birth in hospitals by MDs with anesthesia and sterile equipment?

I can definitely see a lot similarities b/w the two procedures (male and female). The biggest difference I see (and the reason I don't think male circumcision should be illegal, like some folks do) is that males can still enjoy sex after being circumsized, but females can't.

I see male circumcision as a cosmetic choice (more and more insurance companies are declining to pay for it for this reason). Like any other cosmetic procedure, people weigh the pros and cons and make their decision. I certainly harbor no ill feelings towards anyone who chooses to circumsize their son, just as I wouldn't expect anyone to harbor ill feelings towards me for not circumsizing mine!

 

[eve]

Last I heard it happens to THOUSANDS of baby boys every year right here in the USA. Where is your outrage about that?

If parents can legally mutilate their sons, why can't they touch their daughters? Equal rights and all that jazz................

A completely different issue!!! The clitoris is a source of sensation, the foreskin is not. See the thread on male circumcision is The Jury Room. I just told my story there, my son had to be circumsized at 5 for MEDICAL reasons, but there is nothing "barbaric" in male circumcision.

Female circumcision is specifically aimed at eliminating a female's pleasure so she won't stray. Equal rights are NOT a concern of those who engage in this practice, believe me. I think even calling it "circumcision" is a misnomer. It should be called a "clitorectomy" or something.

Eve

 

[southcitymom]

exactly, the 2 are completely different. Circumsicion isn't as cruel and inhumane as this. Circumsicion is snipping some skin off, female genital mutilation is cutting off your entire clitoris. male circumsicion is a choice made by parents.Choosing to do it or not to do it doesn't make you an awful person, I got the impression from a few on here that parents who circumsise their sons are as cruel and the pepole who take part in female circumsision. I chose to have my son circumsised and there were no adverse reactions, he never uttered a cry except when he was given the shot of lidocane, it healed great within 2 days, he never was bothered by the aftercare, cleaning the area didn't bother him either. I was worried going in to it though b/c of the pain aspect but he took it really well, but all babies are different, the one right behind him may have had a hard time with it.

The skins that's cut off in a male circumcision contains more than half of the sensual nerve endings in the entire penis. So I think some comparison could be made between the foreskin and the clitoris.

I hope none of my posts ever led you to believe that I think people who choose to circumcise their sons are cruel. I don't - not at all. :blowkiss:

I just think - as Bham Mama touched on in her terrific recent post - that it's important to look at and recognize the similarities and the differences and our reasons for feeling the way we do vs. other cultures reasons for feeling the way they do. I am a big fan of challenging my own preconceived notions!