Have you heard about the AAP's change on its stance on FGM (female genital mutilation)? In it's new policy statement, issued April 26th, it suggests that US federal law should be changed to allow pediatricians to perform a 'ritual nick or incision' of the female privy parts. This is known as stage IV FGM.
Last time I knew, the WHO was reconsidering their stance. As I'm sure you know, the findings they're going by are studies done in Africa. I wish people would look at the BIG picture and not just a small study or 2 done in such a poor country. What the WHO fails to point out is that rape and infidelity rates are extremely high there, not to mention lack of education regarding safe sex. If this study is valid, which it has been proven not.....why does America have such a high STD rate AND the only country still routinely circumcising? It seems that circumcision doesn't work for Americans.
*ahem* Not to be harsh, but you are making stuff up because you don't agree with the reality - I hope that you use better research skills when teaching your patients. This is straight from the WHO website, copyright 2010: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes:
the provision of HIV testing and counseling services;
treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
the promotion of safer sex practices;
the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
WHO is leading UN Agencies (UNAIDS, UNICEF and UNFPA) to set norms and standards, develop policy and programme guidance for safe male circumcision services and support countries to develop male circumcision policies and strategies within the context of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy."
FGM is a primarily African practice (Egypt is notorious, and one of the primary battlegrounds of the anti-FGM movement). I think that studies being conducted in Africa are appropriate.
*ahem* You are making stuff up because you don't like the reality - I hope that you use better research skills when teaching your patients. This is straight from the WHO website, copyright 2010: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes:
the provision of HIV testing and counseling services;
treatment for sexually transmitted infections;
the promotion of safer sex practices;
the provision of male and female condoms and promotion of their correct and consistent use.
WHO is leading UN Agencies (UNAIDS, UNICEF and UNFPA) to set norms and standards, develop policy and programme guidance for safe male circumcision services and support countries to develop male circumcision policies and strategies within the context of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy."
No, I'm not making anything up. Calm down. Are you capable of having a civilized adult conversation? Yes, I read the article and no I didn't see there where it says they've recommended it. They've come up with a plan that they think will decrease HIV and even admit that circumcision will only offer partial protection (if you believe that), along with safe sex, etc etc. Bottom line....despite what their little studies say....circ'ed men can and do get AIDS. Cutting off a normal functional part of the member isn't going to change that.
No, I'm not making anything up. Calm down. Are you capable of having a civilized adult conversation?
I don't want to bandy ad hominem attacks, nor do I really want to hijack this thread with a tangent. Clearly we disagree, and if you're not going to believe the WHO, you're certainly not going to change your mind because of any argument I make. As someone who has worked at length with her city's efforts at curbing STDs and improving sexual health education, these topics hit a nerve - please forgive me if I've overstepped the bounds of good debate.
I don't want to bandy ad hominem attacks, nor do I really want to hijack this thread with a tangent. Clearly we disagree, and if you're not going to believe the WHO, you're certainly not going to change your mind because of any argument I make. As someone who has worked at length with her city's efforts at curbing STDs and improving sexual health education, these topics hit a nerve - please forgive me if I've overstepped the bounds of good debate.
Ok, thank you. And I'm sorry if I was a little b*****. I've been on both sides of the fence so I've seen the pro side and the anti side of this issue. However, I'm now against obviously and it does hit a nerve with me as well. My only request of parents as with any topic regarding their child is look at the big picture.
At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, why is it wrong for a doctor to nick a female's genitalia to satisfy parents' religious beliefs. But when the tip of the male member is removed entirely to satisfy parents' religious/tradion, it's ok because enough people are doing it?
We can argue that there is a correlation between men that are circumcised and lower STD rates. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment: that does NOT mean circumcision prevents STD transmission. It could be a difference in the culture, race, or other variables that are the real reason the STD transmission rates differ. After all, we know some cultures/races tend to get their boys done and some do not.
And to be fair, has an equivalent study been done on any variation of female "circumcision"? If we remove extra skin from females (assuming it's done properly and w/o infection), isn't it possible having less damp areas to harbor viruses work would as well for them as it does for the circumcised men?
Just curious what others think about what appears to be a double-standard?
Another question I always wondered: if circumcision was so wonderful, why aren't uncut adult men begging for it? The only ones who seem to be getting it are the babies, and they can't exactly consent for it, can they?
First of all, the original post said little or nothing about circumcision. It is about FGM.
Traditional FGM practices are all about male domination, even if done by women, and are frequently done on girls older than 6, not on infants. This is akin to torture, and the infection/complication rates are high. Then, there is the repeated cutting and sewing needed throughout the womens' lives.
For the less aware, this is needed because the woman needs to be split open on her wedding night by her groom, just to have intercourse. Then split open more when actually delivering her baby, then sewn together again for the man's pleasure.
As for circs, in general I am not sure they are medically necessary, but I am Jewish, so my boys were circ'ed. They are done on the 8th day for a healthy baby, by a trained ritual circumsizor, usually in the home. No one generally assists, except to hold the infant. I completely disagree with the procedure being done prior to the 5th or 6th day - not enough time for certain problems to be evident.
And it is NOT the 'tip' of the member, but the foreskin, that is removed. Does it ultimately make a difference to the man - well, I don't know. They all seem to enjoy sex, cut or not!!!!
First of all, the original post said little or nothing about circumcision. It is about FGM.
Traditional FGM practices are all about male domination, even if done by women, and are frequently done on girls older than 6, not on infants. This is akin to torture, and the infection/complication rates are high. Then, there is the repeated cutting and sewing needed throughout the womens' lives.
For the less aware, this is needed because the woman needs to be split open on her wedding night by her groom, just to have intercourse. Then split open more when actually delivering her baby, then sewn together again for the man's pleasure.
As for circs, in general I am not sure they are medically necessary, but I am Jewish, so my boys were circ'ed. They are done on the 8th day for a healthy baby, by a trained ritual circumsizor, usually in the home. No one generally assists, except to hold the infant. I completely disagree with the procedure being done prior to the 5th or 6th day - not enough time for certain problems to be evident.
And it is NOT the 'tip' of the member, but the foreskin, that is removed. Does it ultimately make a difference to the man - well, I don't know. They all seem to enjoy sex, cut or not!!!!
There is a movement among Jewish parents that are now refusing to circ their sons. Not assuming it matters to you, I just wanted to share.
About men enjoying sex....I look at it this way, look at all the erectile problems men have. I see numerous ads in magazines or on TV for KY jelly, viagra or other male enhancement pills. IMO, our high circ rate may have something to do with some of the issues man have later in life. During a circ, lubrication glands are "removed", 20,000 or so nerves are "removed" and the glans of the member (which is suppose to be an internal part of the body) gets desensitized due to being exposed.....so to me, it makes sense that circ'ing has something to do with many men issues. I didn't even touch on the issues of painful erections due to the Dr. taking too much skin or making the member crooked or buried. There's a whole lot of things that can go wrong and some don't show up for years....so I'm sure those men aren't happy and probably don't realize their problem(s) are circ'ed related. I'm not arguing or trying to pick your feathers....just giving the other side. :)
At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, why is it wrong for a doctor to nick a female's genitalia to satisfy parents' religious beliefs. But when the tip of the male member is removed entirely to satisfy parents' religious/tradion, it's ok because enough people are doing it?
And to be fair, has an equivalent study been done on any variation of female "circumcision"? If we remove extra skin from females (assuming it's done properly and w/o infection), isn't it possible having less damp areas to harbor viruses work would as well for them as it does for the circumcised men?
Just curious what others think about what appears to be a double-standard?
First, what is generally referred to as "female circumcision" is not remotely even close to what is considered to be "male circumcision".
I have seen and taken care of these women and the damage is horrific in comparison. Very little "female circumcision" involves a "small nick". It generally involves cutting off the privy parts. This in effect in males of cutting the entire end of the whole member off - it does not merely desensitize...it eliminates a substantial amount of nerve endings.
It is designed to destroy sexual feeling in women. As far as I can tell, the male circumcision does not destroy sexual feeling/function in males. Thus the difference.
Secondly, that above procedure is on the most minimal level of what "female circumcisons" involves. More prominently, it may and often does involve any combo of the following: The labia majora removed, the labia minora removed involved, the inner walls scraped, and often the woman is literally sewed so that there is only one tiny hole left for urine and menses to pass out. Not uncommonly, the woman may have to cut open on her wedding night with a knife.
There are numerous studies as to the high mortality rate, infection rate and morbidity rate that these procedures causes. There are muliple urinary tract infection, deathes in childbirth, women that have babies die within them poisoning them, urine backing up into the lady parts, fistula formation, and gross urinary and fecal incontinence. These women are also MORE LIKELY to get AIDS and other STDs. Since virtually any sex is going to cause bleeding and that some of the protective layers have been irreparably damaged and scarred, the women is literally laid up to infection from her partner. And then often the spouse will abandon her as he is no longer attracted to her, and he moves on to another virgin.
Virtually all practicing International NGOs cite FGM as one of the major contributers to the AIDs epidemic among women and mothers. That along with rape as part of genocide.
In my time in an African hospital, in an educated area, probably 70 to 80% of the female pts suffered from complications related to this.
Please do not compare male and female circumcision, there is no comparison. They are far and away very different things.
CeilingCat - - In most places, when the word 'circumcision' is mentioned, the assumption is the removal of the male foreskin. When the qualifier 'female' is added, an entirely different set of circumstances arises. If it truly only meant the hood of the privy parts was removed, it might be similar.
Are they both 'mutilation'? I suppose they are. But the rationale - if there is one - is entirely different. For certain cultures, male circs are done as a covenant with G-d, in others, as a rite of passage to manhood. But the female circs are done simply for the pleasure of men, and to ascertain virginity in young, unmarried women.
Removing the hood, the privy parts, the inner labia, and then sewing together the outer labia down to the size of a match stick is quite different.
Plus, no one can deny that men can achieve sexual pleasure regardless of their status. FMG usually means the woman will never have true sexual pleasure, and may in fact suffer endlessly and needlessly after their procedure.
Hey, CrunchyMama! I believe that most ED problems are related to the Western lifestyle - poor diet, obesity, hypertension, diabetes. And then to the meds that are used to treat these conditions.. It would be interesting to see if the circ is related.
In my personal experience (TMI, I know!!!!) healthy men, even some with mild med problems, do not have ED at such a young age. Even some well into their 60's do not have performance issues. And others may need a more thorough assessment to see if they are still producing enough testosterone!
If I woke up tomorrow without my privy parts, my life would be unbearably sad - and boring!!!!
.thumb.jpg.95579fecd0c06f764e0cfdf4eb6f58b0.jpg){kind=small}
aura_of_laura
321 Posts
*ahem* Not to be harsh, but you are making stuff up because you don't agree with the reality - I hope that you use better research skills when teaching your patients. This is straight from the WHO website, copyright 2010: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. Male circumcision provides only partial protection, and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes:
WHO is leading UN Agencies (UNAIDS, UNICEF and UNFPA) to set norms and standards, develop policy and programme guidance for safe male circumcision services and support countries to develop male circumcision policies and strategies within the context of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy."
FGM is a primarily African practice (Egypt is notorious, and one of the primary battlegrounds of the anti-FGM movement). I think that studies being conducted in Africa are appropriate.