Female circumcision trial may be first in U.S.

[Avenger]

LAWRENCEVILLE, Georgia (AP) -- The trial of an Atlanta-area father
accused
of circumcising his 2-year-old daughter with scissors is focusing
attention
on an ancient African practice that experts say is slowly becoming more
common in the U.S. as immigrant communities grow.

Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides men like
a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Khalid Adem, a 30-year-old immigrant from Ethiopia, is charged with
aggravated battery and cruelty to children.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/27/female.circumcision.ap/index.html

When I read the title, I thought hmmmm... clits have no sexual
function, so cut 'em off just like we cut off foreskins.

[Batroc Z. Leaper]

In article <ViJ0h.2351$***@trnddc01>, ***@avengers.co.uk
(Avenger) says...

Post by Avenger
Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides men like
a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Yes, and if you trim that little cauliflower while they are still
babies, you can handle it without anaesthesia on an outpatient basis.
They will never notice it. You don't even have to use a doctor.

[cora]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
(Avenger) says...

Post by Avenger
Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides men like
a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Yes, and if you trim that little cauliflower while they are still
babies, you can handle it without anaesthesia on an outpatient basis.
They will never notice it. You don't even have to use a doctor.

I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

[Hanuman]

Post by cora

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
(Avenger) says...

Post by Avenger
Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides
men like a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Yes, and if you trim that little cauliflower while they are still
babies, you can handle it without anaesthesia on an outpatient basis.
They will never notice it. You don't even have to use a doctor.

I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

Wake up. All those posts were SATIRE, mimicking the responses to male
circumcision.

Duh.

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by Hanuman

Post by cora
I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

Wake up. All those posts were SATIRE, mimicking the responses to male
circumcision.

Who said that, haaa.

I actually intially thought American was actually "trialing" female
circumcisions!!!!

[Ken Chaddock]

Post by cora

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
(Avenger) says...

Post by Avenger
Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides men like
a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Yes, and if you trim that little cauliflower while they are still
babies, you can handle it without anaesthesia on an outpatient basis.
They will never notice it. You don't even have to use a doctor.

I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

and you apparently don't understand the use of sarcasm...so I guess
I'll have to explain that many of the posters responding to this thread
are opposed to male circumcision and are (sarcastically) putting forward
the most common arguments used to "justify" removal of the male fore skin.
The *point* of this being to demonstrate that when the target of the
circumcision is a girl, most people recoil in horror, when the target is
a boy...well there's not much reaction at all...do you understand now ?

...Ken

[j***@yahoo.com.au]

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by cora

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
(Avenger) says...

Post by Avenger
Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides men like
a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Yes, and if you trim that little cauliflower while they are still
babies, you can handle it without anaesthesia on an outpatient basis.
They will never notice it. You don't even have to use a doctor.

I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

and you apparently don't understand the use of sarcasm...so I guess
I'll have to explain that many of the posters responding to this thread
are opposed to male circumcision and are (sarcastically) putting forward
the most common arguments used to "justify" removal of the male fore skin.
The *point* of this being to demonstrate that when the target of the
circumcision is a girl, most people recoil in horror, when the target is
a boy...well there's not much reaction at all...do you understand now ?
...Ken

My son is uncircumcised. There was never any doubt in my mind that this
was the correct way to go. My husbands mother wanted it done because
when my husband was a baby, everyone got it done - it was just routine.
We are more knowledgeable these days and see it for the unnecessary
procedure that it is. My older brothers who are both doctors, have not
had their sons done either.

[ponysteel]

Understand if you are capable of it, that there is absolutely NO
analogy between female genital mutilation, which is disgusting, harmful
and is done to restrict a womans sexual response and male circumcision,
which is beneficial in every way and improves the sex life of both the
male and his partner. I am sick of hearing pathetic anti-circ idiots
attempting to equate FGM with male circumcision in order to solicit
sympathy for their miserable cause.

Pony

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by cora

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
(Avenger) says...

Post by Avenger
Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides men like
a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Yes, and if you trim that little cauliflower while they are still
babies, you can handle it without anaesthesia on an outpatient basis.
They will never notice it. You don't even have to use a doctor.

I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

and you apparently don't understand the use of sarcasm...so I guess
I'll have to explain that many of the posters responding to this thread
are opposed to male circumcision and are (sarcastically) putting forward
the most common arguments used to "justify" removal of the male fore skin.
The *point* of this being to demonstrate that when the target of the
circumcision is a girl, most people recoil in horror, when the target is
a boy...well there's not much reaction at all...do you understand now ?
...Ken

[Batroc Z. Leaper]

Post by ponysteel
Understand if you are capable of it, that there is absolutely NO
analogy between female genital mutilation, which is disgusting, harmful
and is done to restrict a womans sexual response and male circumcision,
which is beneficial in every way and improves the sex life of both the
male and his partner. I am sick of hearing pathetic anti-circ idiots
attempting to equate FGM with male circumcision in order to solicit
sympathy for their miserable cause.

If you can justify the genital mutilation of infants, so can we. Also,
it is the WOMEN who insist on female circumcision. It's apparently a
religious thing, and we all know that you should respect religious
beliefs.

Meanwhile the circumcision rate in the USA has dropped from 98% to 60%,
so men's opposition to circumcision is having some effect. You might
think about the fact that, in any given year in the USA, more boys lose
complete sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications
than the entire number of female circumcisions in the world.

Female circumcision is unfortunate, but male circumcision is a much
larger social and health problem that should be addressed first.

[Jake Waskett]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Meanwhile the circumcision rate in the USA has dropped from 98% to 60%,
so men's opposition to circumcision is having some effect.

There are no records that the circumcision rate has ever been as high as
98%. Surveys of adult men indicate that the US rate peaked at about 91% in
the 1970s. Since then, the rate has been fairly stable at about 85%. About
60-65% of these are performed as hospital neonatal circumcisions, and this
rate has been fairly stable between 1979 and the present. This disproves
the myth that rates have falled dramatically.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
You might
think about the fact that, in any given year in the USA, more boys lose
complete sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications
than the entire number of female circumcisions in the world.

There's no evidence that that's the case.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Female circumcision is unfortunate, but male circumcision is a much
larger social and health problem that should be addressed first.

It's not a health problem. Health is clearly improved as a result of
circumcision.

[Batroc Z. Leaper]

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Meanwhile the circumcision rate in the USA has dropped from 98% to 60%,
so men's opposition to circumcision is having some effect.

There are no records that the circumcision rate has ever been as high as
98%. Surveys of adult men indicate that the US rate peaked at about 91% in
the 1970s. Since then, the rate has been fairly stable at about 85%. About
60-65% of these are performed as hospital neonatal circumcisions, and this
rate has been fairly stable between 1979 and the present. This disproves
the myth that rates have falled dramatically.

Your numbers are way out of date. When I went web surfing, I found that
the circumcision rate has dropped to 55%. In just a few years,
circumcisions will be a minority, and you will lose the sheep.

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
You might
think about the fact that, in any given year in the USA, more boys lose
complete sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications
than the entire number of female circumcisions in the world.

There's no evidence that that's the case.

Necrosis, and even the occasional death, from infection. Exposed glans,
requiring skin transplant, which never recovers sensation.

You can find a long litany of complications at

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

There is also evidence for the loss of ejaculatory capability later in
life, due to the loss of sensation in the foreskin.

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Female circumcision is unfortunate, but male circumcision is a much
larger social and health problem that should be addressed first.

It's not a health problem. Health is clearly improved as a result of
circumcision.

The health benefits are a myth. That's why people opposed to genital
mutilation have started referring to it as circumstition.

http://www.circumstitions.com/

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
You might
think about the fact that, in any given year in the USA, more boys lose
complete sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications
than the entire number of female circumcisions in the world.

There's no evidence that that's the case.

Necrosis, and even the occasional death, from infection. Exposed glans,
requiring skin transplant, which never recovers sensation.

According to the WHO there are more than 100 million women in the world
who have suffered FGM. Are you seriously proposing that the extremely
rare case of necrosis or glans damage in the US far outnumbers 100
million in any given year? If so you have a tough road to hoe, as
there are far less than 2 million circumcisions total in the US in any
given year.

What crackpot anticirc website did you get that howler from??

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
There is also evidence for the loss of ejaculatory capability later in
life, due to the loss of sensation in the foreskin.

Mmm what kind of evidence might that be? Anedcotal drivel on a
crackpot anticirc website?

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
The health benefits are a myth.

Not according to scientific research. But you arent interested in
scientific findings, are you?

[Batroc Z. Leaper]

Post by w***@aol.com
According to the WHO there are more than 100 million women in the world
who have suffered FGM. Are you seriously proposing that the extremely
rare case of necrosis or glans damage in the US far outnumbers 100
million in any given year? If so you have a tough road to hoe, as
there are far less than 2 million circumcisions total in the US in any
given year.
What crackpot anticirc website did you get that howler from??

Where did you get the idea that 100 million women get trimmed every
year? You are just inflating figures to make it seem like women are at
risk, when the problem is virtually nonexistent in in western society.
If you are so concerned about female circumcision, move to Africa.
Otherwise, focus on the real problem in the USA, which is the gratuitous
sexual mutilation of 2 million helpless infants every year - all boys.

[Jake Waskett]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper

Post by w***@aol.com
According to the WHO there are more than 100 million women in the world
who have suffered FGM. Are you seriously proposing that the extremely
rare case of necrosis or glans damage in the US far outnumbers 100
million in any given year? If so you have a tough road to hoe, as
there are far less than 2 million circumcisions total in the US in any
given year.
What crackpot anticirc website did you get that howler from??

Where did you get the idea that 100 million women get trimmed every
year?

He's already told you: the World Health Organisation.

He probably meant this page:

"Over 100 million women and girls are estimated to have had FGM worldwide."

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr30/en/index.html

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Where did you get the idea that 100 million women get trimmed every
year? You are just inflating figures to make it seem like women are at
risk, when the problem is virtually nonexistent in in western society.
Otherwise, focus on the real problem in the USA, which is the gratuitous
sexual mutilation of 2 million helpless infants every year - all boys.

Now now, -- you are getting your knickers all in a twist just because I
showed you are talking nonsense.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
You might
think about the fact that, in any given year in the USA, more boys lose
complete sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications
than the entire number of female circumcisions in the world.

I pointed out that this is impossible because botched circumcisions are
very rare in the USA, while according to the World Health Organization
there are 100 million or so women who are victims of FGM (other
organizations have higher estimates, closer to 150 million). The WHO
estimates the annual number FGM victims at about 2 million, which
itself is far more than the total number of circumcisions in the USA
each year, botched or otherwise!

Just as a matter of interest, how many many males do you think lose
"all sexual function from botched circumcisions" in the US each year,
and what is YOUR source for your "fact"?

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
If you are so concerned about female circumcision, move to Africa.

Toots, it was you, not I, who brought up the subject of female
circumcision -- why dont you move there?

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Otherwise, focus on the real problem in the USA, which is the gratuitous
sexual mutilation of 2 million helpless infants every year - all boys.

About 2 million boys are born in the USA each year -- do you really
think the circ rate is about 100 per cent?

[Zac]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Your numbers are way out of date. When I went web surfing, I found that
the circumcision rate has dropped to 55%.

Don't trust what you read on websites.

The rate isn't 55%. Even most anti-circ wackos lament numbers higher
than that. I know lots of people and all of them have chosen circ for
their boys, and I live in a typical area in the US.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
In just a few years, circumcisions will be a minority, and you will lose the sheep.

You'd be hard pressed to find a foreskin where I live. Dream on about
your marjoity becoming a minority as you suggest... it isn't going to
happen within my lifetime or yours.

However, I will concede that one of two things could bring it about:
one is a rapid economic decline in the U.S., which isn't impossible,
and the other is a transition to some kind of nationalized health care
system -- which will be given to us courtesy of the health insurance
industry bankrupting the health care system, and we all know what
national program leaders do when they get an excuse from a defective
medical study or report indicating that they can save a penny here if
they lose a dollar later: cut preventive services like circumcision.
Happened in the UK, somewhat in Canada, and in Australia and NZ. But
maybe the U.S. can stay a "cut above" the rest by demanding that we get
the services we want.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
http://www.circumstitions.com/

A wacko anti-circ site.

[Jake Waskett]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Meanwhile the circumcision rate in the USA has dropped from 98% to 60%,
so men's opposition to circumcision is having some effect.

There are no records that the circumcision rate has ever been as high as
98%. Surveys of adult men indicate that the US rate peaked at about 91% in
the 1970s. Since then, the rate has been fairly stable at about 85%. About
60-65% of these are performed as hospital neonatal circumcisions, and this
rate has been fairly stable between 1979 and the present. This disproves
the myth that rates have falled dramatically.

Your numbers are way out of date. When I went web surfing, I found that
the circumcision rate has dropped to 55%. In just a few years,
circumcisions will be a minority, and you will lose the sheep.

I assure you that my numbers are quite correct. I regret that I can't be
responsible for what figures activists choose to invent and present on
their websites. Personally, I always rely upon reputable sources.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
You might
think about the fact that, in any given year in the USA, more boys lose
complete sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications
than the entire number of female circumcisions in the world.

There's no evidence that that's the case.

Necrosis, and even the occasional death, from infection. Exposed glans,
requiring skin transplant, which never recovers sensation.
You can find a long litany of complications at
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

What you will not find, however, is any data on the frequency of
such occurrences. Which means that your claim ("more boys lose complete
sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications than the
entire number of female circumcisions in the world") cannot be
substantiated.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
There is also evidence for the loss of ejaculatory capability later in
life, due to the loss of sensation in the foreskin.

There is no credible evidence for this claim.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Female circumcision is unfortunate, but male circumcision is a much
larger social and health problem that should be addressed first.

It's not a health problem. Health is clearly improved as a result of
circumcision.

The health benefits are a myth. That's why people opposed to genital
mutilation have started referring to it as circumstition.
http://www.circumstitions.com/

They're not a myth. They're based upon solid, scientific data.
Anti-circumcision activists have an interesting approach to the
evidence, but it is unfortunately based largely upon scientific
illiteracy. Hugh Young (the owner of the website you mention) occasionally
posts here and demonstrates this.

[ponysteel]

You really must stop believing the rubbish and propaganda which you
find on the anti-circ websites Batroc! We are all aware that the
percentage circumcised in the USA has been affected by large scale
immigration from communities where circumcision is not practised
routinely. After the first generation, most immigrant families become
assimilated into the community and adopt the cultural practices of
their new country. The fact is that if one discounts the
non-circumcising Latin American and European immigrants, the circ rate
among Americans is as overwhelmingly high as ever and no amount of
wishful thinking on the part of the anti-circ idiots will make it
otherwise! Most American mothers like their men circumcised!

Pony

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Meanwhile the circumcision rate in the USA has dropped from 98% to 60%,
so men's opposition to circumcision is having some effect.

There are no records that the circumcision rate has ever been as high as
98%. Surveys of adult men indicate that the US rate peaked at about 91% in
the 1970s. Since then, the rate has been fairly stable at about 85%. About
60-65% of these are performed as hospital neonatal circumcisions, and this
rate has been fairly stable between 1979 and the present. This disproves
the myth that rates have falled dramatically.

Your numbers are way out of date. When I went web surfing, I found that
the circumcision rate has dropped to 55%. In just a few years,
circumcisions will be a minority, and you will lose the sheep.

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
You might
think about the fact that, in any given year in the USA, more boys lose
complete sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications
than the entire number of female circumcisions in the world.

There's no evidence that that's the case.

Necrosis, and even the occasional death, from infection. Exposed glans,
requiring skin transplant, which never recovers sensation.
You can find a long litany of complications at
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/
There is also evidence for the loss of ejaculatory capability later in
life, due to the loss of sensation in the foreskin.

Post by Jake Waskett

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
Female circumcision is unfortunate, but male circumcision is a much
larger social and health problem that should be addressed first.

It's not a health problem. Health is clearly improved as a result of
circumcision.

The health benefits are a myth. That's why people opposed to genital
mutilation have started referring to it as circumstition.
http://www.circumstitions.com/

[Batroc Z. Leaper]

Post by ponysteel
You really must stop believing the rubbish and propaganda which you
find on the anti-circ websites Batroc! We are all aware that the
percentage circumcised in the USA has been affected by large scale
immigration from communities where circumcision is not practised
routinely. After the first generation, most immigrant families become
assimilated into the community and adopt the cultural practices of
their new country.

I will never support the genital mutilation of children, though am more
ambivalent about the genital mutilation of adults. In the case of
sickos like you, I even support the concept.

[Hanuman]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
I will never support the genital mutilation of children, though am
more ambivalent about the genital mutilation of adults. In the case
of sickos like you, I even support the concept.

In the case of Ponysteel, I support the removal of the clearly useless
tissue above the neck.

[Zac]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
I will never support the genital mutilation of children,

So? Do you plan to engage in violent disobedience to prevent what you
consider to be mutilation?

I think some nut actually was caught a few years ago stealing a
circumcision board from a hospital. I never heard a followup but I hope
he was at least sentenced to restitution and confinement to a mental
facility.

[Batroc Z. Leaper]

Post by Zac

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
I will never support the genital mutilation of children,

So? Do you plan to engage in violent disobedience to prevent what you
consider to be mutilation?
I think some nut actually was caught a few years ago stealing a
circumcision board from a hospital. I never heard a followup but I hope
he was at least sentenced to restitution and confinement to a mental
facility.

That doesn't seem at all violent to me. That seems more like petty
theft, and it's unlikely to result in any jail time at all, just a fine.

Thanks for the idea.

[w***@aol.com]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
You might
think about the fact that, in any given year in the USA, more boys lose
complete sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications
than the entire number of female circumcisions in the world.

Why do you have to make up such nonsense? You make it seem that you
have no genuine data or rational argument to support your case.

[ls]

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper

Post by ponysteel
Understand if you are capable of it, that there is absolutely NO
analogy between female genital mutilation, which is disgusting, harmful
and is done to restrict a womans sexual response and male circumcision,
which is beneficial in every way and improves the sex life of both the
male and his partner. I am sick of hearing pathetic anti-circ idiots
attempting to equate FGM with male circumcision in order to solicit
sympathy for their miserable cause.

If you can justify the genital mutilation of infants, so can we. Also,
it is the WOMEN who insist on female circumcision.

Not true in all cases. Many of my friends who have had boys say that
their husbands wanted their sons to be circumcised. I know of 2 out of
3 where the mom talked the dad into not having it done. The dads
wanted it simply because they were.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
It's apparently a
religious thing, and we all know that you should respect religious
beliefs.
Meanwhile the circumcision rate in the USA has dropped from 98% to 60%,
so men's opposition to circumcision is having some effect.

Again, not totally true. From my experience, talking with friends, the
men just want their sons to be "just like dad", whether it's
circumcised or not. It seems to me that most dads know less about it,
medically, than the moms.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
You might
think about the fact that, in any given year in the USA, more boys lose
complete sexual function from botched circumcisions and complications
than the entire number of female circumcisions in the world.
Female circumcision is unfortunate, but male circumcision is a much
larger social and health problem that should be addressed first.

While male circumcision in the US and other western countries is on a
much larger scale, it certainly doesn't make female circumcision
"unfortunate". For the girl (usually not a baby like most boy
circumcision), the operation can range from partial or full removal of
the clitoris and surrounding tissue to a procedure where the external
genitals are cut away and the area closed with stitches, leaving only a
small opening for urination and menstruation.
Some studies show it increases the risk of stillbirths too.
That's hardly unfortunate.

Regarding the article... I would guess that if any father circumcised
his son, at home, with scissors, without any professional help, he
would be arrested for aggravated battery and cruelty to children too.
However, the trial is totally ridiculous to begin with. How could the
mother not know what happened until a year later? And, how could a 7
year old possibly remember the details of something that happened when
she was 2.

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

[Hyerdahl]

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by cora

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
(Avenger) says...

Post by Avenger
Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides men like
a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Yes, and if you trim that little cauliflower while they are still
babies, you can handle it without anaesthesia on an outpatient basis.
They will never notice it. You don't even have to use a doctor.

I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

and you apparently don't understand the use of sarcasm...so I guess
I'll have to explain that many of the posters responding to this thread
are opposed to male circumcision and are (sarcastically) putting forward
the most common arguments used to "justify" removal of the male fore skin.
The *point* of this being to demonstrate that when the target of the
circumcision is a girl, most people recoil in horror, when the target is
a boy...well there's not much reaction at all...do you understand now ?

When female children are mutilated it is because men want them that
way; when male children are circed it is done for the same reason. :-)
Of course, in western civilization where the population is just over
51% female, women don't submit to what men want.

Post by Ken Chaddock
...Ken

[w***@yahoo.com]

Post by Hyerdahl

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by cora

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
(Avenger) says...

Post by Avenger
Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides men like
a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Yes, and if you trim that little cauliflower while they are still
babies, you can handle it without anaesthesia on an outpatient basis.
They will never notice it. You don't even have to use a doctor.

I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

and you apparently don't understand the use of sarcasm...so I guess
I'll have to explain that many of the posters responding to this thread
are opposed to male circumcision and are (sarcastically) putting forward
the most common arguments used to "justify" removal of the male fore skin.
The *point* of this being to demonstrate that when the target of the
circumcision is a girl, most people recoil in horror, when the target is
a boy...well there's not much reaction at all...do you understand now ?

When female children are mutilated it is because men want them that
way; when male children are circed it is done for the same reason. :-)
Of course, in western civilization where the population is just over
51% female, women don't submit to what men want.

I agree with this -- men do want their kids to be circumcized, from
what I have witnessed. However you are wrong -- women do submit to
having their sons circumcized. I know several women who were dead set
against this, but the husbands demanded it for the kids, so the wives
went along with it.

[Hyerdahl]

(edit)

Post by Hyerdahl
When female children are mutilated it is because men want them that
way; when male children are circed it is done for the same reason. :-)
Of course, in western civilization where the population is just over
51% female, women don't submit to what men want.

I agree with this -- men do want their kids to be circumcized, from
what I have witnessed. However you are wrong -- women do submit to
having their sons circumcized. I know several women who were dead set
against this, but the husbands demanded it for the kids, so the wives
went along with it.

I don't think it is a matter of submission. I think it's a matter of
expertise. Someone with a penis likely knows more about the penis than
someone without one.Since the father IS the one with the penis, don't
you think he should have more to say about whether or not his son is
circed? Just a question.

[w***@yahoo.com]

Post by Hyerdahl

(edit)

Post by Hyerdahl
When female children are mutilated it is because men want them that
way; when male children are circed it is done for the same reason. :-)
Of course, in western civilization where the population is just over
51% female, women don't submit to what men want.

I agree with this -- men do want their kids to be circumcized, from
what I have witnessed. However you are wrong -- women do submit to
having their sons circumcized. I know several women who were dead set
against this, but the husbands demanded it for the kids, so the wives
went along with it.

I don't think it is a matter of submission. I think it's a matter of
expertise. Someone with a penis likely knows more about the penis than
someone without one.Since the father IS the one with the penis, don't
you think he should have more to say about whether or not his son is
circed? Just a question.

No, I think the owner of said penis -- or vagina for that matter --
should have domain over his or her own body. That person can decide
when they are of appropriate age to make any "body modifications."

[Hanuman]

Post by w***@yahoo.com

Post by Hyerdahl
I don't think it is a matter of submission. I think it's a matter of
expertise. Someone with a penis likely knows more about the penis
than someone without one.Since the father IS the one with the penis,
don't
you think he should have more to say about whether or not his son is
circed? Just a question.

No, I think the owner of said penis -- or vagina for that matter --
should have domain over his or her own body. That person can decide
when they are of appropriate age to make any "body modifications."

Indeed, and that ought be true for any non-medically necessary form of body
modification, in my opinion.

[Hyerdahl]

Post by Hanuman

Post by w***@yahoo.com

Post by Hyerdahl
I don't think it is a matter of submission. I think it's a matter of
expertise. Someone with a penis likely knows more about the penis
than someone without one.Since the father IS the one with the penis,
don't
you think he should have more to say about whether or not his son is
circed? Just a question.

No, I think the owner of said penis -- or vagina for that matter --
should have domain over his or her own body. That person can decide
when they are of appropriate age to make any "body modifications."

Indeed, and that ought be true for any non-medically necessary form of body
modification, in my opinion.

Again, I'd vote for that....but many parents would not.

Post by Hanuman
--
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." - George Bernard Shaw

[Hyerdahl]

Post by w***@yahoo.com

Post by Hyerdahl

(edit)

Post by Hyerdahl
When female children are mutilated it is because men want them that
way; when male children are circed it is done for the same reason. :-)
Of course, in western civilization where the population is just over
51% female, women don't submit to what men want.

I agree with this -- men do want their kids to be circumcized, from
what I have witnessed. However you are wrong -- women do submit to
having their sons circumcized. I know several women who were dead set
against this, but the husbands demanded it for the kids, so the wives
went along with it.

I don't think it is a matter of submission. I think it's a matter of
expertise. Someone with a penis likely knows more about the penis than
someone without one.Since the father IS the one with the penis, don't
you think he should have more to say about whether or not his son is
circed? Just a question.

No, I think the owner of said penis -- or vagina for that matter --
should have domain over his or her own body. That person can decide
when they are of appropriate age to make any "body modifications."

I'd vote for that, but a lot of people would not.

[Bababooie]

Post by Hyerdahl

Post by Ken Chaddock

Post by cora

Post by Batroc Z. Leaper
(Avenger) says...

Post by Avenger
Well females are much cleaner with a good circumcision and besides men like
a well trimmed woman, less STD's.

Yes, and if you trim that little cauliflower while they are still
babies, you can handle it without anaesthesia on an outpatient basis.
They will never notice it. You don't even have to use a doctor.

I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

and you apparently don't understand the use of sarcasm...so I guess
I'll have to explain that many of the posters responding to this thread
are opposed to male circumcision and are (sarcastically) putting forward
the most common arguments used to "justify" removal of the male fore skin.
The *point* of this being to demonstrate that when the target of the
circumcision is a girl, most people recoil in horror, when the target is
a boy...well there's not much reaction at all...do you understand now ?

When female children are mutilated it is because men want them that
way; when male children are circed it is done for the same reason. :-)
Of course, in western civilization where the population is just over
51% female, women don't submit to what men want.

Unless we insist :o)

[Hyerdahl]

(edit)

Post by Hyerdahl
When female children are mutilated it is because men want them that
way; when male children are circed it is done for the same reason. :-)
Of course, in western civilization where the population is just over
51% female, women don't submit to what men want.

Unless we insist :o)

You can't force your will little boy; today women have law, equal
rights AND GUNS. BANG!

[Dr. Lippschitz]

Post by Hyerdahl

(edit)

Post by Hyerdahl
When female children are mutilated it is because men want them that
way; when male children are circed it is done for the same reason. :-)
Of course, in western civilization where the population is just over
51% female, women don't submit to what men want.

Unless we insist :o)

You can't force your will little boy; today women have law, equal
rights AND GUNS. BANG!

You ever try putting that gun up your arse and pulling the trigger?

[Hyerdahl]

Post by Dr. Lippschitz

Post by Hyerdahl

(edit)

Post by Hyerdahl
When female children are mutilated it is because men want them that
way; when male children are circed it is done for the same reason. :-)
Of course, in western civilization where the population is just over
51% female, women don't submit to what men want.

Unless we insist :o)

You can't force your will little boy; today women have law, equal
rights AND GUNS. BANG!

You ever try putting that gun up your arse and pulling the trigger?

No. My ass has never tried to take away my equal rights. :-)

[c***@hotmail.com]

Post by cora
B
I've been offline for awhile and it's nice to remind myself that most
of the really sick jerks online have coagulated in this blighted
newsgroup.

Cora Bora Have you had you clit removed obviously. After all it serves
no sexual purpose.

[a***@gmail.com]

Wow! Let me educate you. The clitoris is a wonderful organ full of nerves that allow a woman to orgasm. When this occurs during love making it makes her feel wonderful and especially close to her partner. Biologically it is a female penis. When we are first conceived we are all female. Some later become boys during development. They all start with an appendage which either becomes a clitoris or a penis. How can you seriously think a clitoris is useless? The fact that you support female genital mutilation at all tells everyone that you must be a sexist, backwards, uneducated brute brought up in a culture that is hundreds of years behind the rest of the world...behind people who know better. Do you have any education? I only ask this because if you did you would understand how ludicrous that statement is. If you don't like the look of a woman's genitals, then you aren't normal. Normal men become highly aroused when they see a woman's genitals. They see a woman as beautiful...all of her.
Let me tell you about female circumcision. It is usually done to young girls without anaesthetic. They are held down, while the cutting is frequently done by people with little to no education with dirty tools. They cut off the labia minora and the labia majora. The clitoris is cut off which is like cutting off the head of the penis. The vagina is sewn up leaving a very small hole just big enough to allow urine and menstrual fluid to escape. Their legs are then bound together for days on end while the girls continue to cry from pain. Many will continue to suffer from pain from this horrible disfigurement for the rest of their lives. It is not necessary and has led to death from bleeding and/or infection, permanent psychological scars, marital problems from the start since men are expected to cut her open with a knife to make room for intercourse which can also lead to infection. Intercourse is painful due to all the scarring and nerve damage. Childbirth is a nightmare and death of babies and mothers have occurred because of this practice.
Let me let you in on a secret...a woman who has not been mutilated like this is a much better partner. Unlike the poor mutilated women, she will love having sex with her husband because it is pleasurable. She will make her husband "happier" also in bed because of this. Lovemaking will be just that...LOVE making since both the man AND the woman will enjoy themselves. These feelings translate into their every day relationship. She is LESS likely to leave because she is happier. A woman who has been mutilated will want to leave because sex is painful, most men in these cultures are sexist and there is a higher rate of physical and emotional abuse. Most of them don't leave even when they want to because it isn't uncommon for these woman in these cultures to be killed or set on fire by the family if they do run away.
If you were a real man you would love what a woman's real genitals look like and wouldn't support the dangerous painful sexual mutilation of little girls.
GROW UP!