I can't stop crying about the Kurdish girl in the Post this AM

[Anonymous]

PP here - forgot to add: I've asked you several times, would this be acceptable to you if just clipped a little off but they left enough of her clitoris so that she COULD feel and maybe orgasm? I hope not.

[Anonymous]

No, they aren't the same but they are both mutilation. I don't think there is a true comparison between the male and female versions of "circumcision".

It's ironic to me that some people can argue so strongly against what happens to the females but can't even begin to see that doing a circumcision on a male might also cause loss of sensation and other issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, they aren't the same but they are both mutilation. I don't think there is a true comparison between the male and female versions of "circumcision".

It's ironic to me that some people can argue so strongly against what happens to the females but can't even begin to see that doing a circumcision on a male might also cause loss of sensation and other issues.

Yes, I completely agree. I guess I'm a little too long-winded to put it out there so clearly.

[Anonymous]

16:21, I wish we could chat but I'm too scared for us to put contact info on this chat!!

[Anonymous]

16:29, 16:21 here - Me too, once I wipe the mad foam and froth from my mouth, that is! Maybe a hotmail acct. is in order?

[Anonymous]

Want to throw in more support for the two brave posters who can draw the parallels to male circumcision.

Also, to those defending male circumcision (or genital mutilation, as I now refer to it), please know that it is harder to defend this unnecessary surgery after your DS has had complications (as mine did with a local mohel). I will not go into graphic detail, but I will always regret the decision.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic to me that some people can argue so strongly against what happens to the females but can't even begin to see that doing a circumcision on a male might also cause loss of sensation and other issues.

As far as I understand the practice reported in the Post, there are always negative consequences -- some more negative then others. In the case of male circumcision, there can be negative consequences, but most often there are not.

I think its wrong to suggest -- as has been suggested earlier -- that those who choose to circumcise haven't done enough research or don't understand the risks. Since I'm the father of two boys, I did research the topic extensively. I found that there were risks associated with not circumcising and risks associated with circumcising. Purely on the basis of statistics, the risk associated with circumcising were slightly higher. But, in both cases, the risks were so small as to be nearly immaterial. So, basically this came down to a choice based on religion, culture, tradition, or preference.

The one thing I have learned is that regardless of the soundness of its arguments, the anti-circumcision crowd has a tendency to come across as overly fanatical. Equating what happened to the little girl in the Post story with male circumcision as practiced in the US is one example of that. Not being able to resist the opportunity to hijack the tragedy that befell this girl for your own cause is another.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic to me that some people can argue so strongly against what happens to the females but can't even begin to see that doing a circumcision on a male might also cause loss of sensation and other issues.

As far as I understand the practice reported in the Post, there are always negative consequences -- some more negative then others. In the case of male circumcision, there can be negative consequences, but most often there are not.

I think its wrong to suggest -- as has been suggested earlier -- that those who choose to circumcise haven't done enough research or don't understand the risks. Since I'm the father of two boys, I did research the topic extensively. I found that there were risks associated with not circumcising and risks associated with circumcising. Purely on the basis of statistics, the risk associated with circumcising were slightly higher. But, in both cases, the risks were so small as to be nearly immaterial. So, basically this came down to a choice based on religion, culture, tradition, or preference.

The one thing I have learned is that regardless of the soundness of its arguments, the anti-circumcision crowd has a tendency to come across as overly fanatical. Equating what happened to the little girl in the Post story with male circumcision as practiced in the US is one example of that. Not being able to resist the opportunity to hijack the tragedy that befell this girl for your own cause is another.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. It is actually infuriating to me that some of these posters are essentially saying that I - as a mother of 2 boys - have conducted the same type of mutiliation as the parents of the little girl in the Washington Post.

It is fine for them to not agree with circumcision, but to equate the two is just plain wrong and inflammatory. It isn't "brave" at all.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's ironic to me that some people can argue so strongly against what happens to the females but can't even begin to see that doing a circumcision on a male might also cause loss of sensation and other issues.

As far as I understand the practice reported in the Post, there are always negative consequences -- some more negative then others. In the case of male circumcision, there can be negative consequences, but most often there are not.

I think its wrong to suggest -- as has been suggested earlier -- that those who choose to circumcise haven't done enough research or don't understand the risks. Since I'm the father of two boys, I did research the topic extensively. I found that there were risks associated with not circumcising and risks associated with circumcising. Purely on the basis of statistics, the risk associated with circumcising were slightly higher. But, in both cases, the risks were so small as to be nearly immaterial. So, basically this came down to a choice based on religion, culture, tradition, or preference.

The one thing I have learned is that regardless of the soundness of its arguments, the anti-circumcision crowd has a tendency to come across as overly fanatical. Equating what happened to the little girl in the Post story with male circumcision as practiced in the US is one example of that. Not being able to resist the opportunity to hijack the tragedy that befell this girl for your own cause is another.

I'm one of the anti circ posters. I've tried to keep the little girl present in my posts and have in almost all. I have made sure I have in no way diminished the absolute atrociousness of what was done to her. You're right we could switch to a new thread but it seemed a relevant point to me and then it took off.

Here is what I said about parents deciding to circumcise or not: If more parents saw what really happens and/or thoroughly researched it, how unnecessary it is and the risks involved, fewer would do it. That doesn't mean that those that do circumcise don't care about their kids or are knowingly harming them. It means that they don't know, in my opinion, enough about it.

I was careful in trying NOT to insult people. I said "fewer" - not all, leaving room for those whose conclusions are different from my own even after careful research and consideration.

I was not "Equating what happened to the little girl in the Post story with male circumcision as practiced in the US." I was drawing parallels, of which there ARE a few. That is why I asked in my posts if it would be ok for this to be done in a hospital, under some anesthetic and maybe only a small bit of the clitoris to be removed. NOT what happened to the little girl, but a lot closer to what happens to little boys. It is a very uncomfortable topic, especially for those who have already made the decision, but I think the parallel is there and I said so. I've tried to show that I understand and acknowledge that others make thoughtful decisions that I just happen disagree with. I have tried very hard not to be fanatical but to be rational if passionate. I think I have done a decent job of trying to represent my position, but not a the expense of others'. It's uncomfortable, but I thought relevant here, to generate thought and discussion about these practices. I think it has gone pretty well compared to many topics that aren't this touchy.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your thoughtful post. It is actually infuriating to me that some of these posters are essentially saying that I - as a mother of 2 boys - have conducted the same type of mutiliation as the parents of the little girl in the Washington Post.
It is fine for them to not agree with circumcision, but to equate the two is just plain wrong and inflammatory. It isn't "brave" at all.

I can only repeat what I wrote:

No, they aren't the same but they are both mutilation. I don't think there is a true comparison between the male and female versions of "circumcision".

So no one said that - you're not reading thoroughly I guess.

[Anonymous]

A good comparison is that adult men often voluntarily go for circumcisions for health reasons (usually phimosis), but I have never seen an adult woman choose to have her clitoris removed. So I do think them to be very different things, the removal of a clitoris is a bit much.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I was not "Equating what happened to the little girl in the Post story with male circumcision as practiced in the US." I was drawing parallels, of which there ARE a few.

Well, in that case, try to explain this statement:

"I don't say this to take anything away from the horror and pain of that little girl's story but to open peoples' eyes to the fact that WE DO THE SAME THING HERE!"

How is that not equating what happened to the little girl in the Post story with male circumcision as practiced in the US? You are clearly saying that what we do here is the same as what was done to the girl.

Yes, many of your posts have been reasonable. But, not all.

[Anonymous]

OK, that should have been more like this:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I was not "Equating what happened to the little girl in the Post story with male circumcision as practiced in the US." I was drawing parallels, of which there ARE a few.

Well, in that case, try to explain this statement:

"I don't say this to take anything away from the horror and pain of that little girl's story but to open peoples' eyes to the fact that WE DO THE SAME THING HERE!"

How is that not equating what happened to the little girl in the Post story with male circumcision as practiced in the US? You are clearly saying that what we do here is the same as what was done to the girl.

Yes, many of your posts have been reasonable. But, not all.

You're right, I'm not perfect. I said I tried. I tried pretty hard too. No name-calling, even in response to being called names. Really thinking about the other side of the subject and how I would feel if I were going to read what I was writing form that perspective. I think I tried for respectful dialogue a lot harder than many, esp. given the subject matter. I know you disagree with me. Am I wrong to feel you're holding me to a higher standard than most?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Am I wrong to feel you're holding me to a higher standard than most?

I'm not holding you to any standard at all. You said that what happened to the Kurdish girl is the same as what is practiced with males in this country. I used that as an example of the overly fanatic tendencies of the anti-circumcision crowd and you responded by saying you never said such a thing. I then showed that you did indeed write exactly that. That's not holding you to a standard. That's simply supporting my point.

[Anonymous]

Based on some of the replies here, it is not clear that everyone understands that there are different types of "female circumcision" that occur around the world. I didn't read the article too closely, but it seems that the Kurdish practice is not one of the more extreme that others are using as examples. Just wanted to point that out...