re: #142 Bob Levin

I never claimed that circumcision prevents males from enjoying sex. But from my research so far I have found many articles citing:

-Up to 66% decrease in sexual sensitivity on the penis
-Around 100 boys die a year from circumcision related complications

Now, I understand that religion and community might marginalize this because of an appreciation for tradition. It also just seems so incredibly clear to me how ethnocentric these discussions are. They are based solely around a communities beliefs. I have not seen any science posted on this thread above the “benefits” of circumcision and the only ones I have found is cleanliness (Yeah… I mean I guess if they cut off 70% of your foreskin it is easier to keep clean) but come on… really? I also saw someone claim that it reduces HIV transmission. Right. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t trust the ol’ circumcision to get you out of an STD versus a condom.

And, it seems pretty clear how discounted the idea of FGM vs. circumcision idea is in this thread, but I’d still contend that each can be considered human rights violations. But I digress, FGM has clear negative impacts, and can vary in severity. From what I have read, though I still contest that certain types of FGM are very similar to that of circumcision in relation to sexual sensitivity.

I found a nice website here:
circumstitions.com that has a comparison.

I never really even considered the religious side of this in my initial postings — more the human side of it. That’s why I would still contend that it should just be done later when the young adult can choose for themselves as a rite of passage into that community. (Although, apparently, it has to be done within 8 days)

I really find the anthropological side of this debate interesting now. FGM doesn’t really have a religion to call its own, so it is usually seen as a way to make women sexually subservient — a taboo process in the West. And yet, when it is done to males, it is seen as “cleanly” and I assume there is some type of masculine bond formed (as Alouette pointed out in Judaism it is the job of the “father” to set this whole thing up).

—-

An interesting article from the website I linked in this post:

Why Female Genital Mutilation Is More Severe

Brandi Rhoades

Many people mistakenly believe that circumcision is the same whether done on a male or female. [Wrong: nobody says they are the same, except as human rights abuses.] Find out the differences.

Male circumcision still exists in many parts of the post-industrial world while female circumcision does not and is at the center of many inflammatory news articles. Some people argue the practices are the same [Hardly anyone puts it as simplistically as “the same”] and that circumcision done on girls is reviled only because it occurs primarily in Africa. [Or rather, because male circumcision is familiar but female genital cutting is perceived as “alien”.] Learning more about the practices will help understand why the two practices are not equivalent.

One of the primary differences in the two practices is that while male circumcision happens around the world but is more common in Western nations, FGM is almost exclusively a phenomenon in Africa. [Wrong: Male Genital Cutting is prevalent only in the Muslim world, the US, the Philippines, South Korea, tribal Africa, Israel, eastern Polynesia and outback Australia. Female Genital Cutting is very common in Indonesia and Malaysia.] Most people in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which includes millions of people in the United States, believe in male circumcision to be done shortly after birth. [Wrong: Christianity has condemned circumcision from its beginnings.] In parts of Africa, FGM is a religious ritual, though its roots most often are cultural.