Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

ZAMB said:
What do you mean by social context? Are they not both [in some people's minds anyway] a form of religious ritual performed on children not old enough to give consent.
So you don't think the differing social positions of men and women or the social implications of the two are at all relevant? Male circumcision is purely a matter of superstition, clitoral circumcision is specifically carried out with the intent of crippling female sexuality.

FGM is a horrible act of child abuse that will leave the child permanantly damaged, male circumcision is a safe, minor procedure that isn't going to do them any long term damage, no different to a vaccination.
 
Perhaps yyou should do more research?

In Bloom said:
So you don't think the differing social positions of men and women or the social implications of the two are at all relevant? Male circumcision is purely a matter of superstition

Really??? A bill has been presented to congress proposing to ban it.
See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050406.html

also see below

Developmental neuropsychologist Dr. James Prescott has done extensive research into the neurological damage caused by circumcision. He has documented how the excruciating genital pain that is suffered, even "unconsciously," by a new-born male baby, has long-term, damaging consequences on his ability to separate the differences between pain and pleasure in love and intimate relationships. The brain system that has been designed for pleasure is, because of circumcision, encoded with pain. It is simply a fact that this reality disfigures subsequent experiences of pleasure -- and not just in the sexual context.

The blurring of pain and pleasure in the developing brain provides the foundation for many circumcised males to need pain in order to experience pleasure, or vice versa. It would not be unreasonable to argue, therefore, that much of the violence in a society could very well be rooted, in part, in the extent to which that society practices male circumcision.

Scientific studies have consistently shown that circumcision disrupts a child's behavioral development. Studies performed at the University of Colorado School of Medicine revealed that circumcision is followed by prolonged, distressed non-REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. Because of the infliction of unbearable pain on their neural pathways, circumcised babies withdrew into a type of semi-coma that lasted for days and sometimes even weeks.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=236

CIRCUMCISION IS a cruel and very painful operation. Hemostatic forceps are tightly closely in the narrow end of the immature foreskin, a brunt probe is forced between the foreskin and the glans and pushed around to break the connecting tissues that nature has put in place in babies and young children. One or two haemostats are driven as far as possible in the fold between the glans and foreskin, closed fast and the foreskin pulled out. Forceps are fastened across it and at that point it is cut off - and thus one removes the foreskin, which in the developed state amounts to 10cm2 and contains hundreds of nerve endings for erogenous purposes, and similar quantities of sebaceous glands (sic) that secrete lubricant for similar purposes.

There is really no doubt about whether this process should be denoted as mutilation - for indeed removes healthy tissue is removed from a healthy body part. There has been a mindless fear about calling things by their correct name, due to the risk of offending religious groups. It took some years before one was able to call female circumcision, mutilation - but now this term is officially sanctioned.

Nor is there really any doubt about whether this involves an abuse against a child who has not asked for the operation and who cannot defend himself, beyond trying break free and screaming loudly. One can think of the equivalent situation of an adult man being held down by forceful hands and mutilated without anaesthesia. For babies have a fully developed sense of pain - and memory. The hormonal and biochemical changes that arise in the body correspond to those found during torture.

http://www.cirp.org/news/dagensnyheter03-16-01/
 
ZAMB said:
I don't like the thought of any genital mutilation, but I don't understand why no-one is getting worked up about the ritual circumcision of male infants for religious reasons - you can't tell me that the babies want their privates cut [especially by non-medical professionals] but they don't have a choice, do they?
Ummmmm.

I guess you've not been around long enough to remember those threads then.

I am an advocate for the abolition of routine infant male circumcision (RIMC), have been for a long time and am not the only one.

:)

Woof
 
ZAMB said:
I don't have all the facts on this, and I'm no psychologist, but I find it somewhat difficult to that circumcision can have the sort of lasting psychological damage you're talking about on the basis of a small number of studies.

Most circumcised males grow up to be perfectly normal, social adults. Regardless of whether or not it is damaging in some abstract way, you can't compare it to the mutilation and permanent damage done by FGM. I'm sorry, but you just can't.
 
In Bloom said:
I'm not a big fan of either, but you can't compare male circumcision to female. The two have completely different long term effects and social context.
I agree with ZAMB, In Bloom.

You are under-researched on the issue and have swallowed the FGC = baaaaaaad, RIMC = Oh Kaaaaay, mantra.

The practice of sunna circumcision is akin to RIMC and, indeed, is often less invasive since it may only involve a small cut to the clitoral hood rather than any removal of tissue, let alone the whole prepuce.

As long as RIMC is permitted, sunna circumcision of young females should also be permitted.

Alternatively, ANY interference with childrens genitalia should be outlawed, irrespective of the child's gender.

It is illogical, sexist and (I argue,) illegal to permit the mutilation of infant boys, while affording legal protection to restrict the same among young girls.

:mad:

Woof
 
In Bloom said:
Regardless of whether or not it is damaging in some abstract way, you can't compare it to the mutilation and permanent damage done by FGM. I'm sorry, but you just can't.
Sorry, but I just did!

:)

Woof
 
Jessiedog said:
You are under-researched on the issue and have swallowed the FGC = baaaaaaad, RIMC = Oh Kaaaaay, mantra.
Actually, if you read my posts, I specifically said that I don't agree with either. What I actually said was that the social context and effects of the two are different. The reason for a clittorectomy (as opposed to sunna circumcision which is not the same thing, despite your attempt to conflate the two) is specifically to impair the child's ability to enjoy sex, and it is specifically practised upon women because of the way that female sexuality is viewed by the people performing it. The two are different in part because of the reason they are performed and the way that the child is taught to view the two different procedures.
 
In Bloom said:
The two are different in part because of the reason they are performed and the way that the child is taught to view the two different procedures.

BS. Regardless of reason, any procedure that takes a knife to a child unnecessarily without anaesthetic is barbaric and obscene, IMO. The way that the child is taught to view such procedures is nothing more than an adult making an excuse for mutilating their child. Perhaps this discussion would be better on the 'torture watch' thread - after all, one of the tortures reported as having been used by the US is the cutting of the prisoner's private parts with a knife or razor?

If it is considered torture when done to an adult, is it not even more reprehensible to do it to a helpless infant? As one of the sources I quoted previously said

One can think of the equivalent situation of an adult man being held down by forceful hands and mutilated without anaesthesia. For babies have a fully developed sense of pain - and memory. The hormonal and biochemical changes that arise in the body correspond to those found during torture.
 
In Bloom said:
Actually, if you read my posts, I specifically said that I don't agree with either. What I actually said was that the social context and effects of the two are different. The reason for a clittorectomy (as opposed to sunna circumcision which is not the same thing, despite your attempt to conflate the two) is specifically to impair the child's ability to enjoy sex, and it is specifically practised upon women because of the way that female sexuality is viewed by the people performing it. The two are different in part because of the reason they are performed and the way that the child is taught to view the two different procedures.
I was not conflating anything, merely correcting your generalisations.

I was specifically pointing out that sunna circumcision should be permitted if RIMC is permitted, that's all. I have not mentioned clitoridectomy.

Personally, I think both should be outlawed, along with ANY "interference" with children's (of any sex,) genitalia. I reject the notion that RIMC be permitted while sunna circumcision is restricted.

:)

Woof
 
ZAMB said:
What do you mean by social context? Are they not both [in some people's minds anyway] a form of religious ritual performed on children not old enough to give consent.

I think any form of child mutilation is criminal anyhow.


.... apart from the fact that if males were universally circumcised, the incidence of AIDS would drop to a small fraction of what it is now.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
.... apart from the fact that if males were universally circumcised, the incidence of AIDS would drop to a small fraction of what it is now.
Universal condom use would be an even more efficacious prophylactic for HIV - and without the need for the genital-mutilation of infants, or anyone else for that matter.

Surely?

:confused:

Woof
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
.... apart from the fact that if males were universally circumcised, the incidence of AIDS would drop to a small fraction of what it is now.

You really have lost the plot - haven't you? Circumcision helps prevent AIDs????? Aye, and you can catch it from a toilet seat too. :rolleyes:
 
spring-peeper said:
Actually, he is correct.

Circumcision reduces HIV risk: study

But, I'm sure that you will find fault with the study.

You're a smug fucker -aren't you? It's rubbish and it's no better than saying you can pick up AIDS from a toilet seat.

So, you think that the info that you post here is what? Beyond criticism? Above reproach? You're too arrogant for words.

Anyway, this pisses all over your fellow Canadian's thesis.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

The study isn't exactly ideology-free, is it?
 
There is no conclusive evidence that circumcision is an effective preventive for HIV transmission. Indeed, the boat is very much out on that one and the evidence still coming in and studies still leaning in different directions.

On the balance of evidence so far, however, it looks highly unlikely that this invasive, surgical procedure will make anything like as much difference in transmission prevention as condom usage has already been proven to.


Why cut off the arm to try and potentially reduce the future prevelance of gangrene, if other, simple, methods of hygenic practice have already produced demonstrated and effective preventive results?

:confused:

Woof
 
It's actually a scientific study, and not an old wive's tale, like toilet seats.

Yes, some here have an anti-circumcision agenda, so of course it will be bad news for them to learn that circumcision helps prevent the spread of AIDS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/w...731df4de1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/news_updates_archive/2005/jul28_05/circumcision_aids.html

http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/AnEeffectivePreventionForAIDS.html

http://www.aegis.com/news/irin/2004/IR040880.html

http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/20050927031408data_trunc_sys.shtml


there are many more.
 
Also, even if there is less than total agreement about the efficacy of circumcision, if there's even a possibility of it helping with the AIDS crisis, then that imo outweighs any minor danger involved with the procedure of circumcision.
 
AIDS is reliant on the transmission of lots of bodily fluids.

You presume too much, Canuck.

Yes, some here have an anti-circumcision agenda,

No one could ever accuse you of 'having' an agenda - eh? :D

It's actually a scientific study

Which means the study is ideologically neutral...sure. Like your pal, pbman used to say it's "Trees that cause global warming". Aye, right. :rolleyes:

You'll be promoting the virtues of abstinence as a successful measure against the spread of AIDS next.
 
So what does the topic of circumcision have to do with this thread? Admittedly it was started by a bonehead, but praytell, wtf has it got to do with anything?

Agendas 'r' Us...no, surely not. :D
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Also, even if there is less than total agreement about the efficacy of circumcision, if there's even a possibility of it helping with the AIDS crisis, then that imo outweighs any minor danger involved with the procedure of circumcision.

The Aids crisis is more likely to be helped by education and people changing their sexual habits than by a myth based on such very dubious research.

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

There is tons of information to show that, in this case, "A lie will be halfway around the world before the truth has got its pants on."
 
Anyone who can't see the difference between chopping a foreskin and chopping a clitoris is a fool.
 
ZAMB said:
The Aids crisis is more likely to be helped by education and people changing their sexual habits than by a myth based on such very dubious research.

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

There is tons of information to show that, in this case, "A lie will be halfway around the world before the truth has got its pants on."

Exactly but there is a real problem with the state (and its apparatuses) when it comes to proper sex education and how it views sex. Like most other things it has been colonised by ideology and the state's interests appear to lie in providing more cannon fodder for the killing fields...or repressing anything that is deemed pleasurable, unless it has been sanctioned by the authorities first. You can drink yourself to death but they won't let you smoke pot because they have 'studies' which 'prove' it's a "gateway drug". Not that anyone has ever died from a cannabis overdose but that doesn't seem to matter.

Er, I'm having a Reichian moment, excuse me.
 
Abstinence is unworkable. There is some scientific evidence to back up circumcision as an aids preventative. Why not avail ourselves of it?

Zamb: point out what is dubious about the recent study that I first posted.
 
nino_savatte said:
AIDS is reliant on the transmission of lots of bodily fluids.

HIV appears to thrive in body environments that don't have a lot of exposure to the air, recognizing that there are other factors, of course.

The area under the foreskin is one such environment.
 
Scientific studies, such as these, are consistently proven to be funded by specific ideological interest groups; the outcome is always a foregone conclusion. They are not ideologically neutral.

Anyone for "cranial dimensions"? :D
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
HIV appears to thrive in body environments that don't have a lot of exposure to the air, recognizing that there are other factors, of course.

The area under the foreskin is one such environment.

It's wildy speculative and is informed wholly by cultural relativism. Interesting how Jews and Muslims both practice circumcision but neither group is free from AIDS.

Makes you wonder - non? Maybe not.
 
No group is 'free' from aids.

The study points out that the incidence of aids in circumcised men is a fraction of what it is in uncircumcised men.

That's just simply science, and it'll be a shame if this potential preventative measure gets ignored because it goes against some political viewpoint.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
HIV appears to thrive in body environments that don't have a lot of exposure to the air, recognizing that there are other factors, of course.
Johnny, you don't half come out with some dumb stuff, especially for an educated(I think) person.
 
Back
Top Bottom