i asked a question a while back on circumcision and if people thought it was wrong due to the sensitivity loss. most people said that since the boy never had it he wont miss it. Well in some african countries they cut off womens clits before the girl has any sexual encounters of any kind including masturbation. couldnt the same reason be used to justify removing the womans clit. If she never had it, she wont miss it????
2006-11-12 15:23:46 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
Just because someone won't remember something done to them is not a green light to do it. If it was, it would be perfectly legal to sexually abuse babies, or to rape a woman while she's unconscious.
Not all female circumcisions involve cutting off the clitoris. Some cultures cut only the clitoral hood. (The clitoral hood being the female equivalent of the male foreskin.)
I would feel very angry and betrayed if I found out my parents had surgically altered ANY part of me as an infant for stupid reasons like, "I think it looks better", or "Well, it might've gotten infected." It is not the right of the parent to tailor their baby's body to suit their preferences.
Why don't we surgically remove baby girls' breasts while we're at it? A baby girl has a 1/8 chance of getting breast cancer as an adult, imagine the pain you would save her by getting her a mastectomy while she's a newborn. *rolleyes*
I also think that HIV study is really dangerous. I'm already hearing teenagers saying, "I don't need to use a condom, because I'm circumcised." How on earth smart people can believe that is beyond me.
2006-11-13 08:03:14 · answer #1 · answered by brainfrey 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are few valid reasons for circumcision. It is almonst entirely a traditional, "do it because everyone else does it" thing in the U.S. I wouldn't say female circumcision is the same as male circumcision (a woman without a clitoris is generally unable to achieve orgasm or enjoy sex, while thats still possible for a man without a foreskin), but I think they are comparable in that neither are appropriate, both violate individual's right to their own body, and neither are medically necessary.
Just a little fact, there are reports that circumcision of men in tribes in Africa has resulted in slowing down the spread of AIDS in those areas. However, it has also been proven that female circumcision also reduces the spread of AIDS. But ultimately, this is the wrong way too look at AIDS and stopping the disease - we need to change people's behaviors, make sure they recieve education.
2006-11-13 01:33:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't hold with circumcision for either gender, though I'd say what they do to women is more barbaric. At least the guy only loses his foreskin, so he can still enjoy sex. What they do to the women is equivalent to cutting off the penis altogether. (Yeah, I know there's the inside bits, but let's face it, we get the most pleasure from the clit - that tiny lump has as many nerve endings as the full length of a penis.) I don't believe the human body should be deformed this way and if you really believe in circumcision, you should make that choice for no-one but yourself. And for those who go on about the hygene issue being the reason for circumsision - try *bathing* your children for God's sake!
2006-11-13 00:30:48 · answer #3 · answered by The Mad Shillelagh 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Africa's culture isn't based entirely on sex like America's is. An American girl would sure as HELL be upset if her clit was cut off. Some men here go through prodedures to repair their foreskins after they've been circumsized. I've seen documentaries about it, and they were all mad at their parents for making that decision. There's no advantage of any kind to circumcision.
2006-11-12 23:35:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. People get circumcisions now for the same reason that Muslims still do not eat pork. In the past, the foreskin may have caused infections but with modern standards of hygiene being so high, the foreskin actually does not pose a health threat. Same thing with pigs. In the past, they may have carried diseases which is why the religion deemed eating them a sin but that is no longer true yet many people continually refuse to eat pork for religious reasons.
2006-11-12 23:30:02 · answer #5 · answered by Molley K 1 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I agree because it seems wrong to change what nature gave us. It's purely cultural that we think cicumcision is normal. It's also cultural that cutting off a woman's clit is not normal.
2006-11-12 23:29:49 · answer #6 · answered by Carol May 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
All I have to say is that if anyone decides to give their kid a circucision, they should make sure it's done by a good doctor and not by some religious person who thinks they know what they are doing. And make sure you teach your kid to properly clean it if they don't get it done. I know someone who has pain when they have erections because it hurts to pull the skin down(although I'm sure his case is probably rare). When they were a kid they had no one to show them how to properly clean it and it caused problems. He wishes he had one, but at his age there are more risks of it lowering his sex drive even more.
2006-11-13 00:41:31 · answer #7 · answered by I am a Muppet 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's completely different. When female mutilation occurs, they are removing the whole clitoris, which in essence has pretty much the same sensitivity as a penis. They are not just removing skin.
2006-11-13 12:52:41 · answer #8 · answered by KathyS 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think it is wrong to abuse children, and deny them their human rights to make it to adulthood, when they can then make their own decisions.
In most civilized countries mutilation of children is a crime.
2006-11-12 23:34:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It was a Jew tradition only. Now with better cleanse pratices circumision is not needed.
2006-11-12 23:32:24 · answer #10 · answered by honker 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋