Uganda bans female circumcision

[believe09]

Finally....one down....
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/12/12/uganda.genital.mutilation/index.html

 

[southcitymom]

Thanks God....now, if we can just convince them not to give the death penalty for "homosexual behavior."

 

[PeteyGirl]

I'm very glad for the girls of this country . . . these kind of news stories remind me of how far we've come and where we've been and WHERE WE STILL ARE.

This is the kind of stuff that causes me to think we're not "more" evil and bloodthirsty than we "used to be", we are becoming less barbaric, and here is an example.

Every step forward is good, and I'm glad for this one

 

[badhorsie]

I just hope that it really does stop

 

[Monaco]

Finally....one down....
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/12/12/uganda.genital.mutilation/index.html

I haven't read the article yet, but I certainly will, and such news is always good news.

Thing that bothers me is the way they refer to it as "circumcision," when it is not that at all. Circum Cision means "cutting around." What they actually do is an "ectomy," namely, cutting off.

Until I read the article I won't know what it is they've been cutting off in Uganda, but various cultures cut off various parts, some more than others, then sew up the remainder, leaving a small hole for urine and menstrual flow to escape.

 

[Linda7NJ]

YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

Now, if we can just put an end to MALE CIRCUMCISION!

 

[southcitymom]

YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

Now, if we can just put an end to MALE CIRCUMCISION!

Troublemaker!!! :angel:

 

[Monaco]

YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

Now, if we can just put an end to MALE CIRCUMCISION!

This is not a matter for false comparisons!!!

The cells that turn into the clitoris in female fetuses are the cells that turn into the meatus in male fetuses--NOT the skin around the meatus--as a result of hormonal influences.

In order to do a comparable "ECTOMY" (cutting out/cutting off) to male children, they'd be cutting off the meatus.

http://sheikyermami.com/2009/09/30/are-you-a-sponsor-of-female-genital-mutilation/

 

[southcitymom]

This is not a matter for false comparisons!!!

The cells that turn into the clitoris in female fetuses are the cells that turn into the meatus in male fetuses--NOT the skin around the meatus--as a result of hormonal influences.

In order to do a comparable "ECTOMY" (cutting out/cutting off) to male children, they'd be cutting off the meatus.

http://sheikyermami.com/2009/09/30/are-you-a-sponsor-of-female-genital-mutilation/

Wiki (among a number of other sites) says:

"In male human anatomy, the foreskin is a retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and protects the urinary meatus (pronounced /miːˈeɪtəs/) when the penis is not erect. It is also described as the prepuce, a technically broader term that also includes the clitoral hood in women, to which the foreskin is embryonically homologous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin


The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the male genitalia just as the clitoris is the most sensitive part of the female genitalia.

That said, for me the difference between a female clitoridectomy and male circumcision is this: a female whose clitoris is removed can never achieve orgasm, but a male who has the most sensitive part of his penis removed can achieve orgasm.

This is a big enough difference for me personally to not be able to compare the two procedures as being the same type of mutilation, but let's not pretend that when we choose to circumcise our sons, we're cutting off some useless part of their sexual organs that doesn't have the potential to, in more ways than one, give them great sensory pleasure.

 

[Nova]

Ah, gee, SCM. You and Linda are just making me feel inadequate. Is that really necessary?!

As for the ban on female circumcision, good! A lot of people here would probably consider me a cultural relativist in many ways, but I have no problem drawing a line at mutilating females.

 

[Monaco]

Wiki (among a number of other sites) says:

"In male human anatomy, the foreskin is a retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and protects the urinary meatus (pronounced /miːˈeɪtəs/) when the penis is not erect. It is also described as the prepuce, a technically broader term that also includes the clitoral hood in women, to which the foreskin is embryonically homologous."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin<

*****

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the male genitalia just as the clitoris is the most sensitive part of the female genitalia.

That said, for me the difference between a female clitoridectomy and male circumcision is this: a female whose clitoris is removed can never achieve orgasm, but a male who has the most sensitive part of his penis removed can achieve orgasm.

This is a big enough difference for me personally to not be able to compare the two procedures as being the same type of mutilation, but let's not pretend that when we choose to circumcise our sons, we're cutting off some useless part of their sexual organs that doesn't have the potential to, in more ways than one, give them great sensory pleasure.

(I added the teal color and the asterisks to the quote.)

According to the wiki definition linked above:
foreskin = prepuce = embryonically homologous to clitoral hood.

So, clitoral hood and clitoris are two separate organs. ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood<

Other than that, I completely agree and appreciate learning that I was in error to refer to "meatus," when I should have been referring to "glans penis." It's the glans penis that's "embryonically homologous" to the clitoris, if I now understand correctly.

I've never had any children, but if I ever do, I believe I'd choose to leave my son's prepuce intact and let him choose for himself whether or not to have it removed, rather than taking that choice away from him. ...... (When I first graduated from high school, I worked for a short time as a medical transcriptionist in a hospital, and there were some cases I transcribed of adult men who underwent elective circumcision due to inflammation of the prepuce and inability to retract the foreskin.)

 

[southcitymom]

(I added the teal color and the asterisks to the quote.)

According to the wiki definition linked above:
foreskin = prepuce = embryonically homologous to clitoral hood.

So, clitoral hood and clitoris are two separate organs. ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood<

Other than that, I completely agree and appreciate learning that I was in error to refer to "meatus," when I should have been referring to "glans penis." It's the glans penis that's "embryonically homologous" to the clitoris, if I now understand correctly.

I've never had any children, but if I ever do, I believe I'd choose to leave my son's prepuce intact and let him choose for himself whether or not to have it removed, rather than taking that choice away from him. ...... (When I first graduated from high school, I worked for a short time as a medical transcriptionist in a hospital, and there were some cases I transcribed of adult men who underwent elective circumcision due to inflammation of the prepuce and inability to retract the foreskin.)

Undergoing circumcision as an adult is extremely painful with a fairly lengthy recovery. I think that's one of the reasons that many parents who are into it for their sons choose to do it very early in the game.

Most Americans choose it for religious and/or cosmetic reasons (some insurance companies will no longer cover it because they consider it cosmetic). Many families want father and son to look alike in the nether regions. It was a no-brainer regarding me and my sons as I am married to an Irish man and the majority of Europeans are uncut.

 

[Nova]

(I added the teal color and the asterisks to the quote.)

According to the wiki definition linked above:
foreskin = prepuce = embryonically homologous to clitoral hood.

So, clitoral hood and clitoris are two separate organs. ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_hood<

Other than that, I completely agree and appreciate learning that I was in error to refer to "meatus," when I should have been referring to "glans penis." It's the glans penis that's "embryonically homologous" to the clitoris, if I now understand correctly.

I've never had any children, but if I ever do, I believe I'd choose to leave my son's prepuce intact and let him choose for himself whether or not to have it removed, rather than taking that choice away from him. ...... (When I first graduated from high school, I worked for a short time as a medical transcriptionist in a hospital, and there were some cases I transcribed of adult men who underwent elective circumcision due to inflammation of the prepuce and inability to retract the foreskin.)

(Emphasis added.) That makes more sense to me. I don't know much about foreskins, but I'm pretty sure the head of the penis is the most sensitive part.

I can certainly see the logic and morality of leaving the choice to owner of the penis, but my understanding is that adult circumcision is incredibly painful. The boys in my family were circumcized because my father's father had a medical problem and had to have his foreskin removed around age 40. Apparently, it was quite the ordeal. (But maybe they have better painkillers nowadays.)

 

[Nova]

...Many families want father and son to look alike in the nether regions....

This is why my husband and I don't love our grandsons: because they don't look like us in the nether regions.

Seriously, I know that arguments isn't yours, SCM, and I have heard it a number of times. It was exactly my sister's reasoning when her son was born.

But I don't get it. If fathers and sons can bond despite different eye, hair and even skin colors, why are matching foreskins (or the lack thereof) really so important?

The answer I've received is that the child will find it "confusing"? Huh?

(Since I grew up when male circumcision was the overwhelming norm in the U.S., it doesn't bother me; but that's not really a good reason to do it.)

 

[southcitymom]

Nova, it's interesting. I've just heard SO many people say "Well - you know - we wanted him to look like his Dad." I respect that even as I might not fully get it.

As you point out, for so many years here in the USA circumcision was just automatically done. I don't think much thought was put into it outside of Jewish religious ceremony. It was just the fashion. I do not believe that this harms/harmed boys at all (as a rule) - certainly not in the way girls are harmed by clitoridectomy. As I hope I have made clear, I don't find the two procedures comparable.

I do find the changing norms in the US regarding male circumcision very interesting. When my youngest was in daycare, I was friendly with his teacher who saw a fair number of nether regions, that being prime potty training time. She told me that in his class of about 10 boys about half were and half were not and I thought that was pretty cool - more of a balance than there had been in the past.

DH and I never had much of a discussion about it. We didn't know we were having boys until they were loosed from my body. When the staff asked - will you need us to perform a circumcision, we both just said no. I'll have to ask him if there would have been a fight had I wanted to burn off their foreskins.....maybe he DID want sons that "looked" like him!!

ETA - I have a good friend who circumcised her first son and didn't circumcise her second son. Her husband is circumcised. No one in their house is confused and all the penises seem to be doing just fine!

 

[not_my_kids]

I am so utterly glad this is going to be done with. Uganda isn't the only country that does it, but I looked back over some of the areas surrounding Uganda and Uganda seems to be a trendsetter. So if they ban it some of the other countries will too, hopefully.

O/T: And that was a lovely science lesson. More than I ever wanted to know about my own genitalia. My sons aren't circumcised (and my daughters certainly aren't) but the reasons have nothing to do with confusing them about the difference in theirs and their dads. Their dad simply said that being uncircumcised made him have to pay more attention to his penis and therefore, was more careful with who he put it in. Good enough reason for me.

 

[Nova]

Nova, it's interesting. I've just heard SO many people say "Well - you know - we wanted him to look like his Dad." I respect that even as I might not fully get it.

As you point out, for so many years here in the USA circumcision was just automatically done. I don't think much thought was put into it outside of Jewish religious ceremony. It was just the fashion. I do not believe that this harms/harmed boys at all (as a rule) - certainly not in the way girls are harmed by clitoridectomy. As I hope I have made clear, I don't find the two procedures comparable.

I do find the changing norms in the US regarding male circumcision very interesting. When my youngest was in daycare, I was friendly with his teacher who saw a fair number of nether regions, that being prime potty training time. She told me that in his class of about 10 boys about half were and half were not and I thought that was pretty cool - more of a balance than there had been in the past.

DH and I never had much of a discussion about it. We didn't know we were having boys until they were loosed from my body. When the staff asked - will you need us to perform a circumcision, we both just said no. I'll have to ask him if there would have been a fight had I wanted to burn off their foreskins.....maybe he DID want sons that "looked" like him!!

ETA - I have a good friend who circumcised her first son and didn't circumcise her second son. Her husband is circumcised. No one in their house is confused and all the penises seem to be doing just fine!

In fairness, it wasn't just a fashion, SCM. It was believed that uncircumcised penises remained cleaner and were therefore healthier for their owners and their owners' partners. IIRC, at some point in the mid-20th century, the military encouraged circumcision in soldiers for the same reason.

And I understand there is some tiny bit of truth in that belief, except that proper hygiene negates the difference.

 

[zadari]

my dr did a partial circ on my son .. so he has part of the foreskin but enough gone to avoid infections and make it easier to keep him clean .. anyone here know dr champleaux ? he was my sons dr when he was born he was from france

 

[southcitymom]

In fairness, it wasn't just a fashion, SCM. It was believed that uncircumcised penises remained cleaner and were therefore healthier for their owners and their owners' partners. IIRC, at some point in the mid-20th century, the military encouraged circumcision in soldiers for the same reason.

And I understand there is some tiny bit of truth in that belief, except that proper hygiene negates the difference.

You are right of course about the medical opinion of the time!

 

[Nova]

my dr did a partial circ on my son .. so he has part of the foreskin but enough gone to avoid infections and make it easier to keep him clean .. anyone here know dr champleaux ? he was my sons dr when he was born he was from france

My first reaction to your post was to wonder, "Which part did he remove?"

But then I realized that of course you mean he trimmed some, but not all. So I had a good laugh at my own expense.

We might add that even in nature, foreskins vary widely in length. In medical practice, so do circumcisions.