Just as you wouldn’t use soap for cleaning inside a girl’s labia or vulva. Even using soap externally is an irritant ‘down there’ for lots of women.”

There is a reason for this. All of the inner surfaces of the penis (within the foreskin) and within the labia are mucosal skin. Some read this and think “mucous” but these skin surfaces do not produce mucous. It simply means that this skin type is designed to function in a wet environment. Other areas on the body where mucosal skin is present is in the anal cleft, inside the mouth and lips and the inner eyelids. The inner eyelids are most sensitive to soaps but all those areas are sensitive to soaps to some degree.

Women can relate to leaving soap in their vaginal cleft as it will produce a burning sensation with time. Soap within the prepuce will also have this effect and if there long enough will burn the inner surface of the foreskin and the surface of the glans. Not only will this be painful for the child but these burned surfaces will be more susceptible to infections.

Frank

-Well let’s hope it’s only a matter of time till they can.

Why hope, you just stop mutilating them and you don’t have to hope.

Brettney Said:

However since the nerves system in an infant is not developed are those nerves actually “missing” or do they proceed to develop fully in the area after circumcision? “When babies are born, they do not have fully developed nervous systems, and their systems run slower. Eventually, the nervous system matures.”

That doesn’t say the nerves aren’t there; it only says that the insulating material hasn’t formed around the pathways which seams to increase the propagation delay for impulses. It doesn’t demonstrate that they feel pain more or less acutely. And they aren’t suggesting that the nerve pathways aren’t already formed. They’ve suspended investigations on the pain response of neonatal circumcision without anesthetic because of the obvious distress it causes. Not that it matters since whether or not its painful or distressing is quite besides the point, just because something is painless doesn’t make it ethical.

Brettney Said:

That is only one study out of many dealing with circumcision. Anyone can poke holes trough any studies as all are in some small way inherently flawed. However providing the history of the researcher and how they go into their research dictates whether they have a predestined bias and mess with the number or if they are genuinely looking for answers. This in conjunction with how many other studies support or deny the evidence gained from one study. You can get the general idea if one is indeed factual.” Please pay attention to the last line once more “this in conjunction with how many other studies support or deny the evidence gained from one study.” I would love for there to be studies in Africa where HIV and AIDS are infract an epidemic and female circumcision is more prevalent. Truth be told since that is a long standing practice in Africa and HIV/AIDS has still managed to become an epidemic there I think you will find the results would be quite the opposite from that one study.

That is really the only study. And I think it’s clear that those researchers were looking for the opposite result. They were desperately trying to show that female circumcision increases HIV prevalence. To their disappointment, they failed.

There will be no follow ups because we’ve rightfully declared female circumcision to be a human rights violation, which is where we should be with male circumcision but because of ‘political correctness’ which seems to trump rational thinking, we’re not there, yet. There is biases in research, you’re right about that but perhaps not in the way you think. When researchers look into female circumcision they’re always going in with the preconceived notion that it’s harmful, with MC they ignore the harms and keep digging for incremental, often trivial benefits. Again the study I provided you shocked those who wrote it, and the went to great lengths to try and dismiss it. Actually, it makes biological sense why female circumcision would decrease HIV prevalence in the same way as male circumcision, less tissue (surface area) available to infect would probably decrease the chance of infection. But alas, our biases will prevent us from investigating it.

As far as HIV prevalence viz-a-viz female circumcision in Africa, it must also be pointed out that the US, with the highest rate (by far) of male circumcision amongst industrialized countries has the highest prevalence (by far) of HIV. It is quite clear that circumcision has heretofore not been useful to us here in the US.

Brettney Said:

Once again “-I will agree with that however out of the numbers these are extremely rare occurrences as another poster (Crimson Wife ) mentioned, and since it is so rare it would be fair to bring up the fact that “There are sometimes medical reasons for circumcision, such as phimosis (a condition in which foreskin retraction is impossible).” In that rare case circumcision is in fact necessary. Also there are rare cases of unnecessary c-sections being botched causing a woman or her child life long problems it happens yes it is unfortunate yet fortunately very rare

That’s cold comfort to the boy or man who has to live with that result. I am courious how many botches are acceptable for a non-therapeutic medical procedure? How many deaths are acceptable for a non-therapeutic medical procedure?

All conditions circumcision is purported to prevent are not only rare but can be treated non-invasively. Your example, Phimosis, can be treated either with gentle stretching, or you can be prescribed steroid creams as a second option. Something like betamethasone 0.05% cream for 4 to 6 weeks has been demonstrated to be very effective working for most people who need it. Or if for some reason neither of these work, as a final option, one could opt for a Preputioplasty; the least invasive surgical option. Preputioplasty requires the surgeon to make one or more short longitudinal incisions to relieve the stenosis which would then be sutured transversely (There is even a sutureless option now). Preputioplasty is nearly always the most appropriate surgical option except in some very specific circumstances, such as a non-retractable foreskin which is complicated by significant scarring or tearing. Considering how uncommon these problems are getting to a circumcision because of them is especially rare.

I am aware of the increasing rates of sections. But at least in that case the person being operated on has provided consent. That makes it quite a different situation.

Brettney Said:

Sierra Leon is a small country in the whole of Africa this came up when I researched it “Sierra Leone is the lowest ranked country on the Human Development Index and seventh lowest on the Human Poverty Index, suffering from endemic corruption and suppression of the press.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying because of the countries economic and political status that is why female circumcision persists? If that’s the case let’s take a look at the countries where MC is prevalent (we sure keep good company don’t we:

Albania, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Pakistan, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Indonesia, Israel, Tajikistan, Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Cortie D’ivoire, Togo, Nigeria, Mali, Niger, Algeria, Turkey, Tunisia, Libya, Chad, Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia.

Of course most of them do it just to please the sky fairy.

Brettney Said:

With that statement I went ahead and researched the AWA-FC which turned up nothing on this so called newly formed group, which for all I know could be a farce and have been created by you. Please provide some better evidence to back that article up because it is discredited by the governmental control over the press and the fact that there is nothing on this women’s group.

I am not sure what this is about that press release made in DC, two of the contact numbers are DC area codes the third is Maryland. If you want to corroborate veracity of the press release, there is contact information on the bottom of the page.

Brettney Said:

“The clitoris is a tiny penis without a urethra. The hood around the clitoris which extends into the labia minora are very much like the foreskin.” Which would equate to male circumcision with having the whole penis removed. Once again more oftem then not female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris (not just the hood) and labia minora. Cate I assure you that I am not lying when I say I have researched this in depth.”

This is the problem, when people think about female circumcision they alway think of the worst situation. Rusty razor, mud hut, ect. And they lump all the procedures in together. The bottom line is that here in the US baby girls are protected no matter how severe or benign the ‘circumcision’ would be, no matter the culture, no matter the religion, no matter who does it or at what age. Boys deserve the same respect and protection for their bodies that girls are given.

I will not, however, discuss what type of vehicle I drive or how often. As a green parent, working toward sustainability, I have made good choices for my family. We only have what we need in this household.

-Well let’s hope it’s only a matter of time till they can. However since the nerves system in an infant is not developed are those nerves actually “missing” or do they proceed to develop fully in the area after circumcision? “When babies are born, they do not have fully developed nervous systems, and their systems run slower. Eventually, the nervous system matures.” This was taken from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203162353.htm. Because there is (stated once again) “no way to support that a circumcised male has any less sexual pleasure than an uncircumcised male that is pure biased hearsay.”

“It can impede normal function especially to those unlucky enough to draw the proverbial short straw. And what words do you have to those boys and men who received more than the expected damage? Things that you mention (such as phimosis) are easily treatable non surgically in the rare cases they happen. But in the rare botch, the boy isn’t quite as lucky, he can face life long problems.”

-Once again “-I will agree with that however out of the numbers these are extremely rare occurrences as another poster (Crimson Wife ) mentioned, and since it is so rare it would be fair to bring up the fact that “There are sometimes medical reasons for circumcision, such as phimosis (a condition in which foreskin retraction is impossible).” In that rare case circumcision is in fact necessary. Also there are rare cases of unnecessary c-sections being botched causing a woman or her child life long problems it happens yes it is unfortunate yet fortunately very rare.

Well, everyone gets one right now and then. Yes, it is important to know the goals of the researchers because that can influence the results. In this case you might want to read the abstract of the study Hugh is referring to. You’ll find that they were quite surprised as they were out to demonstrate that female circumcision increases womens risk, they found the opposite. Funny, nobody followed this work. Now that’s biased.

-Why don’t you go back and read the whole statement” That is only one study out of many dealing with circumcision. Anyone can poke holes trough any studies as all are in some small way inherently flawed. However providing the history of the researcher and how they go into their research dictates whether they have a predestined bias and mess with the number or if they are genuinely looking for answers. This in conjunction with how many other studies support or deny the evidence gained from one study. You can get the general idea if one is indeed factual.” Please pay attention to the last line once more “this in conjunction with how many other studies support or deny the evidence gained from one study.” I would love for there to be studies in Africa where HIV and AIDS are infract an epidemic and female circumcision is more prevalent. Truth be told since that is a long standing practice in Africa and HIV/AIDS has still managed to become an epidemic there I think you will find the results would be quite the opposite from that one study.

It’s not always that way, would it make you feel better if they did it in a nice clean and sterile surgical theater? That’s how it’s done in many places like Indonesia and Egypt where Doctors and Nurses did/do most of the procedures. And not all women are against the procedure. As luck would have it there was a recent article/press release from a newly formed group which I am sure you’ll enjoy. All they want is the right to practice their traditions as they see fit, who are we to stop them? The facts are, the authors of that article got it right and there isn’t as much difference between these two procedures as we think.

-Sierra Leon is a small country in the whole of Africa this came up when I researched it “Sierra Leone is the lowest ranked country on the Human Development Index and seventh lowest on the Human Poverty Index, suffering from endemic corruption and suppression of the press.” With that statement I went ahead and researched the AWA-FC which turned up nothing on this so called newly formed group, which for all I know could be a farce and have been created by you. Please provide some better evidence to back that article up because it is discredited by the governmental control over the press and the fact that there is nothing on this women’s group. However this is not to say that all women are against female circumcision as I stated before “With regards to having it done here in the states I have actually met and spoken in depth with Todd Bertrang who is in jail for doing such surgical procedures as female circumcision out of his home, in addition to being the best person to go to for large gauge piercing, branding, other uncommon body modification procedures, and keeping (by choice) sex slaves. Female circumcision takes two weeks to heal as opposed to one week for male circumcision and it does, most commonly, involves the total removal of the clitoris and inner labia (labia minora). Which as Tori said on February 24th, 2009 at 1:29 am, “The clitoris is a tiny penis without a urethra. The hood around the clitoris which extends into the labia minora are very much like the foreskin.” Which would equate to male circumcision with having the whole penis removed. Once again more oftem then not female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris (not just the hood) and labia minora. Cate I assure you that I am not lying when I say I have researched this in depth.”
Joe you some how seemed to overlook this please read thoroughly next time or you do miss important tidbits like that statement and all of the other ones I’ve had to repeat. Also that second article fails to draw the similarities and it is a biased article where as they state their bias while trying to pass it off as a “medical based” document.

One swipe across the forehead and you have an accurate temp reading- this is especially invaluable when the kids are sleeping and I don’t want to wake them. We’ve had ours for about three years now and it’s using the same battery. Oh, and I got ours at the evil W*lmart because it was only $30 (compared to other places online at nearly $50).

Canadian Paediatric Society
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
“Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
“After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
“After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.”
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”

National Health Service (UK)
“Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest it has any medical benefit.”

Canadian Children’s Rights Council
“It is the position of the Canadian Children’s Rights Council that ‘circumcision’ of male or female children is genital mutilation of children.”

drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% (”routine” circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

It’s worth remembering that we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don’t believe me, then google this “A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians’ Own Words”.

Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim “will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists.”
Sure, cases like that are very rare, but why should they happen at all? If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags and skin bridges and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.