Father jailed for US mutilation

[Jay R]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6108516.stm

A US court has sentenced a man to 10 years in jail for genital mutilation of his two-year-old daughter, in what is said to be first such case in the US.

Any thoughts on this? Particularly in relation to questions regarding the naturalisation and integration of immigrant communities?

 

[FallingPianos]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6108516.stm



Any thoughts on this? Particularly in relation to questions regarding the naturalisation and integration of immigrant communities?

heh. had he done the same thing to a boy, instead of being charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children, he would have been charged with practicing medicine without a license.

 

[Kandahar]

heh. had he done the same thing to a boy, instead of being charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children, he would have been charged with practicing medicine without a license.

Circumcision is hardly the same thing for boys and girls. They aren't even comparable procedures. Male circumcision is unnecessary, but it also doesn't do any long-term damage.

 

[FallingPianos]

Circumcision is hardly the same thing for boys and girls. They aren't even comparable procedures. Male circumcision is unnecessary, but it also doesn't do any long-term damage.

on the contrary, it significantly reduces sensitivity and painful erections are the most common complication. not to meantion that the foreskin has a purpose.

http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm
The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. (4) The foreskin also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. This can occur during masturbation or intercourse. Friction is minimized, and supplementary lubrication is not needed. (5) Without the foreskin, the glans skin, which is normally moist mucous membrane, becomes dry and thickens considerably in response to continued exposure. This change reduces its sensitivity. (6) In addition, the loss of a secretion called smegma of the inner foreskin layer removes natural lubrication. Oral-genital sexual activity is more common in the United States than in many other societies. (7) Could the lack of natural lubrication of the penis due to circumcision be a reason?

 

[debate_junkie]

heh. had he done the same thing to a boy, instead of being charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children, he would have been charged with practicing medicine without a license.

apples to oranges. in circumcision, a male's foreskin is removed. in female circumcision, the clitoris is removed, completely. Now which is worse, and causes the greatest amount of damage?

 

[FallingPianos]

apples to oranges. in circumcision, a male's foreskin is removed. in female circumcision, the clitoris is removed, completely. Now which is worse, and causes the greatest amount of damage?

the difference is only a matter of degree. the principles of what makes it wrong are the same.

there is also a wide range of practices regarding female genital cutting, ranging from making a cut but removing no tissue, to completely removing the clitoris and labia.

 

[bandaidwoman]

From a public health standpoint, male circumcision is completely different from female circumcision:

Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection against penile cancer.


Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

more on public health and medical benefits of male circumcison
http://www.circs.org/library/moses/index.html

Funnry thing, I could not find a single medical or epidimiological article on the health benefits of female circumcision! I found a lot of medical articles to the contrary of course!

Just from my experience when I was doing my Ob/gyn in south central Los Angeles (Martin Luther King Hospital) I saw the following associated with female circumcision : chronic pelvic pain, hemorrhage, shock, infection, septicemia and death can occur at the time of the procedure,chronic infections, fistula, incontinence, urethral stenosis, delayed hematocolpos, menstrual disorders, vaginal stenosis, infertility or even sterility.

Now let's find the benefits of female circumcision: oh yea, it's to prevent us from enjoying sex and becoming sluts!:mrgreen:

 

[FallingPianos]

Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection against penile cancer.

Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

there are other ways to prevent the spread of HPV and HIV that dont involve genital mutilation. many of those studies have been shown to have flaws as well.

and doing it just because it looks better is absolutely barbaric. let them wait until they are old enough to consent to it.

 

[bandaidwoman]

there are other ways to prevent the spread of HPV and HIV that dont involve genital mutilation. many of those studies have been shown to have flaws as well.

and doing it just because it looks better is absolutely barbaric. let them wait until they are old enough to consent to it.

True, there is the hpv vaccine, currently being erroneously given just to girls and not boys. As for the age of consent, we can both agree to that, this two year old girl was clearly not of the age of consent, and society may need to address that regarding their sons. As for the flaws in the studies, can you point the specifics out for me? I believe you are talking about the HPV since the HIV transmission data is pretty good.

Here is a very good study ( not epidimiologic but a prospective designed trial looking at HPV association in males and it correlated with # sexual partners of course, and inversly with circumscision). This is one of numerous well designed studies.... granted, past studies were meta analysis and epidimiological associations. I find no flaw with this study.

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16708372?queryText=male circumcision protection from hpv In the internation Journal of Cancer

Here is another good epidemiological study

http://dermatology.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2002/514/1

 

[Gardener]

heh. had he done the same thing to a boy, instead of being charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children, he would have been charged with practicing medicine without a license.

Your apologia seems to know no limits.

 

[Gardener]

I'd suggest not only locking him up for a few decades, but making sure to announce his offense to the other prisoners.

 

[FallingPianos]

Your apologia seems to know no limits.

its not a defense of female genital cutting. its an argument against all non theraputic genital mutilation.

 

[FallingPianos]

True, there is the hpv vaccine, currently being erroneously given just to girls and not boys. As for the age of consent, we can both agree to that, this two year old girl was clearly not of the age of consent, and society may need to address that regarding their sons. As for the flaws in the studies, can you point the specifics out for me? I believe you are talking about the HPV since the HIV transmission data is pretty good.

Here is a very good study ( not epidimiologic but a prospective designed trial looking at HPV association in males and it correlated with # sexual partners of course, and inversly with circumscision). This is one of numerous well designed studies.... granted, past studies were meta analysis and epidimiological associations. I find no flaw with this study.

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16708372?queryText=male circumcision protection from hpv In the internation Journal of Cancer

Here is another good epidemiological study

http://dermatology.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2002/514/1

I'm going to start a new thread on this so as not to highjack this thread any further.

and welcome back. :2wave:

 

[talloulou]

Circumcision is hardly the same thing for boys and girls. They aren't even comparable procedures. Male circumcision is unnecessary, but it also doesn't do any long-term damage.

Really cause I haven't seen any penis regenerate after having the foreskin cut off. :roll:

 

[Kandahar]

Really cause I haven't seen any penis regenerate after having the foreskin cut off. :roll:

I'm not saying I approve of male circumcision, but it is not anywhere NEAR comparable to female circumcision. Let's see...some medical studies have shown that male circumcision may put people at a higher risk for certain problems later in life (and other conflicting studies have shown that it's actually beneficial). That is the extent of the problems associated with it.

Female circumcision, on the other hand, often results in the girl bleeding to death immediately, or being in great pain every time she has sex for the rest of her life, and greatly increases the probability that she will die during childbirth.

 

[FallingPianos]

I posted a new thread about male circumcision here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/health-care/14984-non-theraputic-circumcision.html

 

[FallingPianos]

Female circumcision, on the other hand, often results in the girl bleeding to death immediately, or being in great pain every time she has sex for the rest of her life, and greatly increases the probability that she will die during childbirth.

female circumcision isnt normally performed by doctors who know what they are doing. you cant compare the two.

 

[Kandahar]

female circumcision isnt normally performed by doctors who know what they are doing. you cant compare the two.

OK. Taking that into account, it eliminates the "bleed to death immediately" thing, but not the other things.

 

[FallingPianos]

OK. Taking that into account, it eliminates the "bleed to death immediately" thing, but not the other things.

mmmm I'm not convinced. first, I'm not sure how it would result in pain after it has healed, and I dont see how it would increase the risk of dying in childbirth. maybe you can post some articles or something.

 

[talloulou]

Any kind of genital mutilation done without medical justification is just wacky in my opinion. There are places were female genital mutilation takes place and the girls don't bleed to death just as there are examples of male genital mutilation gone horribly wrong. It's basically a very backwards practice to take a knife to someones genitals regardless of gender.

 

[SixStringHero]

Any kind of genital mutilation done without medical justification is just wacky in my opinion. There are places were female genital mutilation takes place and the girls don't bleed to death just as there are examples of male genital mutilation gone horribly wrong. It's basically a very backwards practice to take a knife to someones genitals regardless of gender.

I don't remember a damn thing, so meh.

Also, many girls I have conversed with have said they don't find the sight of an uncircumcised penis attractive.

 

[talloulou]

I don't remember a damn thing, so meh.

Also, many girls I have conversed with have said they don't find the sight of an uncircumcised penis attractive.

Female circumcision of one form or another has been practiced throughout parts of Africa and I think even Egypt. In places where it is done it is considered a "cultural thing." It's something they just do. To us it seems horrible because it is not part of our cultural and so we view it for what it is....a mutilation. Male circumcision is not practiced so routinely in most of the world as it is in the US. The majority of men throughout the world have intact genitalia. People will point to how the young girls scream and have to be held down. On males in the US it is mostly done during infancy and the baby is held down and screams as well. Both male and female circumcisions can be done badly with complilcations.

If male circumcision was a practice that was done in the US when a boy turned 10 it wouldn't have lasted nearly this long. Boys wouldn't be into it at all and there would be much more outcry and outrage at the barbaric practice. Since it is done on infants with no ability to object or fight against it the practice continues.

As far as women not liking uncircumcised genitalia that's just part of our cultural. Many women, myself included, have never even been with an uncircumcised man. So basically we don't have a f-ucking clue what we're talking about when it comes to what we like so to speak.

 

[FallingPianos]

Many women, myself included, have never even been with an uncircumcised man. So basically we don't have a f-ucking clue what we're talking about when it comes to what we like so to speak.

i've been with both, and they're both ugly. there is just nothing you can do to make a hairy tube that shoots slime pretty looking. thats what men have faces for.

 

[talloulou]

i've been with both, and they're both ugly. there is just nothing you can do to make a hairy tube that shoots slime pretty looking. thats what men have faces for.

Well I'm not into up close macro shots of either male or female genitalia. But I'd have to agree that men got the "sillier" looking parts. :mrgreen: But we got the whole bleeding with the moon cycle crap. I'd say it's a draw.

But goofy appearances aside.....did they both feel the same?

 

[FallingPianos]

Well I'm not into up close macro shots of either male or female genitalia. But I'd have to agree that men got the "sillier" looking parts. :mrgreen: But we got the whole bleeding with the moon cycle crap. I'd say it's a draw.
But goofy appearances aside.....did they both feel the same?

heh. I was with the intact guys in highschool, or very shortly there after, so it simply didnt go that far. they are more fun to play with though. :mrgreen: