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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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...

There are three types -- clitoroidectomy (type I), type III believe involves additional removal of the labia minora, while type III includes removal of the labia majora, leaving only a small opening for urine and menstrual flow. I agree that type I is the least extreme of the three forms, but what is most heinous to me that it is performed on children who can not provide consent, in an unsterile environment with dirty instruments and without anesthesia or post-operative pain control and wound care. The lasting physical and psychological trauma on the victims must be unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And male circumcision does not affect the sexual health of a man FOREVER. Most women who are circumcised cannot have orgasms, have painful sex, etc. The act of female circumcision should in no way be compared to male circumcision. I am actually appalled that anybody would compare the two. When you look at the health risks below, I am pretty sure you will see that there is just no comparison.
.

Have you seen the wrinkly skin under the head of a circumcised penis? THAT IS SCAR TISSUE and so cannot feel the same sensation as the skin that was cut off with a knife. Many circumcisions go wrong. If too much skin is cut off - as it often is- adult males have pain with every erection and can have tearing of the skin with bleeding and infections. Ever heard of men who curve to the side? That is usually from too much skin being removed and the erection is forced to bend so the skin doesn't tear. Not to mention the penises that were referred to as "destroyed" by circumcision accidents in the research I did to educate myself before deciding about circumcision for my future kids. I suggest you do some research too.

Of course female circumcision is horrifying and brutal and an unacceptable violation of the body of an unwilling, un-consenting child and everything possible should be done to stop the practice. Just because we are used to it and it is the cultural norm (as female circumcision is in some places) we shouldn't gloss over the brutality of male circumcision. Even if anesthesia is used for baby boys, and usually is not, it takes at least an hour to take effect at all and very few wait the hour - it's usually more like 10-15 mins so there is no numbing. Have you seen the "circ board" that the babies are strapped to? Really sad and scary.

If you replace "male" with "female" and read a blow by blow description of a circumcision, anyone would be horrified. 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! We do it under more sanitary conditions and to babies who can't describe how awful it is but we do it nonetheless. We are just so used to it we don't even think about it.

Just asked my husband and two of his friends about this. They have never heard of any of it and said it is not that common or bad...

[Anonymous]

Well then, case closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some procedures are not pretty but they are not as horrible as you make them out to be. Have you seen your vagina and what it goes through? Not pretty but we still do it. Female circum. is insane. Male circ is not at all the same thing.

[Anonymous]

I have only experienced circumcised men and they don't have any problems, no permanent damage from what was done to them.

My brothers are not circ'd and actually have had problems with inflammation, infection... I think circ'd is probably more sanitary. And gets a guy more BJs.

I personally don't believe in circumcision. If God or Mother Nature didn't want a foreskin on the penis, it wouldn't be there. I worked hard for 9 months to make this perfect little body and I'm not cutting or puncturing or removing anything.

That said,

It is absurd to equate the removal of the male foreskin with a clitorectomy. One is in essence a cosmetic procedure. The other is a gross mutilation conducted for horrific chauvinistic purposes, often in the name of twisted, perverted religion, with an openly avowed purpose to suppress female sexuality.

[Anonymous]

Male circumcision is a brutal, horrific practise that sadly is still so common today in the US. Please consider that in other parts of the world (e.g. Scandinavia) it would be illegal to mutilate a baby boy in a way that is done every day here in the US for purely cultural reasons. Yet, UTIs, HIV, etc. are no more common there.
I do understand though that once a parent has made the decision to allow circumcision for their baby boy, they must close their eyes and ears for any reasoning against the practise in order to be able to live with their decision. I am sure I will get flamed for this post, but I have never posted on this topic before and probably never will again, but I am so completely disgusted by this practise and it is hard for me believe that so many otherwise reasonable people would try to defend it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Please consider that in other parts of the world (e.g. Scandinavia) it would be illegal to mutilate a baby boy in a way that is done every day here in the US for purely cultural reasons.

I just did a quick search and was not able to find one country in Scandinavia -- or anywhere else in the world for that matter -- where male circumcision is illegal. I suppose I will be accused of holding you to a higher standard, but I think its reasonable to ask that you provide some evidence to back up your claim.

[Anonymous]

Female circumcision is illegal in Norway, does that count?

[Anonymous]

Even if anesthesia is used for baby boys, and usually is not, it takes at least an hour to take effect at all and very few wait the hour - it's usually more like 10-15 mins so there is no numbing. Have you seen the "circ board" that the babies are strapped to? Really sad and scary.

This is not true. Have you ever had a mole removed or stitches? The local they use is instant. It does not take an hour to numb the skin on the penis using the locals that are used. I am not sure where the poster of this did her research but there are many procedures that use topicals that are instant, they do not take an hour to numb and the ones used for circs numb the little penis instantly. Of course the baby screams. It is a day or two old and is away from the mom, not nursing, not sleeping. New borns scream. But please research at sites that give actual medical info or ask a pediatrican or OB.

[Anonymous]

The topical anesthetic used in circumcisions takes about 45 minutes to start working. With my son, I insisted that the doctor wait for it to work before cutting. Newborns' nervous systems are not quite as well developed as older babies. This may be protective since the birth process could be painful. So the younger infant is not as sensitive. Even so, when I witnessed my week old nephew's circumcision, he yelped for 15 seconds. Yes, it was sore for a week, but he does not remember that.
As far as the pain goes, tons of children have had procedures with no anesthesia. We still pierce ears with out anesthesia.

The woman that did the procedure used an anesthetic that was injected. The Clitoris does have more nerve tissue and is bound to be more painful and therefore, a greater set up for chronic pain.
Having the procedure does not mean that she can never have an orgasm, it just wont be as easy. There are vaginal nerves that can be stimulated to cause an orgasm.

That said, since there is no practical use for the procedure, and no adult woman would voluntarily have it done, they they should stop doing it.
The same can be said about tattoos and "tribal marks" done in parts of the world. These kids are scarred for life.

Male circumcision can be argued to have some health benefit, like slowing the transmission of AIDS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Even if anesthesia is used for baby boys, and usually is not, it takes at least an hour to take effect at all and very few wait the hour - it's usually more like 10-15 mins so there is no numbing. Have you seen the "circ board" that the babies are strapped to? Really sad and scary.

This is not true. Have you ever had a mole removed or stitches? The local they use is instant. It does not take an hour to numb the skin on the penis using the locals that are used. I am not sure where the poster of this did her research but there are many procedures that use topicals that are instant, they do not take an hour to numb and the ones used for circs numb the little penis instantly. Of course the baby screams. It is a day or two old and is away from the mom, not nursing, not sleeping. New borns scream. But please research at sites that give actual medical info or ask a pediatrican or OB.

When my son had to have his circ fixed, they did a numbing cream topically that did take up to a half hour to work. I insisted on shots of local anethestic, because the doc said the topical doesn't numb completely. We had to wait for the topical to take effect, then he got shots around the area, which *were* instantaneous, and "then" he had the procedure done.

Anyway, just saying there are different methods for pain management. However, it seems to me that if a pain med takes a half hour to work, the docs will wait until it kicks in. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The topical anesthetic used in circumcisions takes about 45 minutes to start working. With my son, I insisted that the doctor wait for it to work before cutting. Newborns' nervous systems are not quite as well developed as older babies. This may be protective since the birth process could be painful. So the younger infant is not as sensitive. Even so, when I witnessed my week old nephew's circumcision, he yelped for 15 seconds. Yes, it was sore for a week, but he does not remember that.
As far as the pain goes, tons of children have had procedures with no anesthesia. We still pierce ears with out anesthesia.

The woman that did the procedure used an anesthetic that was injected. The Clitoris does have more nerve tissue and is bound to be more painful and therefore, a greater set up for chronic pain.
Having the procedure does not mean that she can never have an orgasm, it just wont be as easy. There are vaginal nerves that can be stimulated to cause an orgasm.

That said, since there is no practical use for the procedure, and no adult woman would voluntarily have it done, they they should stop doing it.
The same can be said about tattoos and "tribal marks" done in parts of the world. These kids are scarred for life.

Male circumcision can be argued to have some health benefit, like slowing the transmission of AIDS.

If the new born nervous system is not as developed doesn't that mean the circ would not be as painful as we think it is. Our obgyn assured us the topical did not take 45 minutes to work, and my husband looked it up online the night before. Supposedly it works on contact as does the topical used to remove moles. Who knows though, you never know what is true or which research to believe since it all contradicts one another.

[Anonymous]

Many dr.'s do not always wait for the numbing ointment or injections to work (the injections do take time to work--when you are having dental work, doesn't your dentist wait after the injection before he/she starts drilling? Yes, it takes time for the medicine to work, it's not instantaneous!) Obs who do the procedure are rushed and just trying to fit the job in between calls to the delivery rooom and postpartum checks. That being said, I did have my own son circumcised and do regret it at times. When he was a toddler sitting on the potty for training, he used to pull on the end of his penis, say it was uncomfortable and ask why the skin didn't go all the way to the end. It was heartbreaking.

[Anonymous]

I was present at the hospital for my son's circ, when we was 2 days old. Normally they do not allow mothers to attend the surgical procedure, but we were at a small community hospital and they we willing to bend the rules.

The put a numbing cream on the penis and as they were cutting, gave my son a few drops of sugar water to drink. The second the sugar water hit his month, he was entierly focused on the water. He hardly flinched, I suppose the sugar was just that intense.

Doc said not all kids react so well, about 50/50. My son got more angry when we had to change a diaper and expose his bum to the cold.

It was not a big deal. I DO think that urologists should do circs an NOT OBs. Especially since urologists are the ones who do the corrections, so I would think that they would be better quailified to preform the initial procedure.