SOB’s Grins & Grumps

Everything Between Heaven and Earth and Beyond

  • Copyrights, Feeds and Contact

  • April 2007
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar   May »
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    2930  
  • Visitors Count

    • 64,272 hits
  • Categories

  • Meta

Emotional Comparison creates connotations that are untrue.

Posted by Henric C. Jensen on April 9, 2007


“GENITAL INTEGRITY IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.

Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are genitally/sexually mutilated (circumcised ) in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. (Source, AAP document)”

Oh.

You forgot this part:

“The AAP, though it does not recommend Routine Infant Circumcision (RIC), allows and teaches it’s members to perform this procedure. In contrast, the AAP strongly opposes any form of female genital mutilation.”

Could the reason for this “discrepancy” in “values” be due to the fact that there is a huge difference between the two? That the doctors actually know that there is a huge difference both in the matter of procedure, context and consequences?

“The risks of male genital mutilation, commonly referred to as Routine Infant Circumcision (RIC), far out weighs any very questionable benefits. Parents and physicians each have an ethical duty to the child to attempt to secure the child’s best interest and well-being.”

Male circumcision can be compared to having your ear pierced (something hoards of parents do to their toddlers daily), or having you ear lobe snipped. While female “circumcision” can be compared to having the tip of your tongue cut of and your lips sewn together.

A doctor performing a male circumcision will use clean instruments, local anastethics and his medical knowledge and skill to make sure that the child is not harmed, something that is not present in case of female genital mutilation.

RIC, does play a role in the appearance of cervical cancer in women who have sex exclusively with circumcised men – it is almost non-existent, instead of being banned, it should be given an appropriate secular context as something that increases the health in a future partner. Because it is here the problem arises – when there is no reason, no context and no meaning to a rite, it becomes harmful to the individual.

To target male circumcision in general will eventually also target the two religious bodies/communities that has male circumcision at the very core of their beliefs – Judaism and Islam. Both those communities have a safe and stable context in which circumcision has a place and a meaning. That is why few Jewish and Muslim men question or feel that they have been harmed by being circumcised. Of course they exist – the question is why they exist. I’d say that those who are Jewish or Muslim, who feel that they have been harmed by being circumcised, have not been given a proper context – basically, they were not raised within a coherent Jewish or Muslim context, some times they don’t even know that they are Jewish or Muslim, and then of course it becomes completely imcomprehensible why they are circumcised.

When words are seemingly equated – i.e Female Genital Mutilation is called “circumcision” and Male Circumcision is called Male Genital Mutilation the truth suffers and people promoting such equation play into the emotional area, rather
than telling the truth.

Shalom!

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Emotional Comparison creates connotations that are untrue.”

  1. Anonymous said

    “Male circumcision can be compared to having your ear pierced”

    With all due respect, no such comparison is accurate.

    An ear piercing does not remove sensitive sexual tissue. An ear piercing could be more closely compared to a foreskin piercing.

    Are you aware that the most sensitive areas are removed by circumcision? This was recently demonstrated in a study published in the British Journal of Urology:

    Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

    “A doctor performing a male circumcision will use clean instruments, local anastethics and his medical knowledge and skill to make sure that the child is not harmed, something that is not present in case of female genital mutilation.”

    While training, clean instruments, and anesthetics can minimize the risk, even a “successful” circumcision is harmful, not only permanently altering sexual function and causing sensitivity loss, but also depriving a male of the right to choose either circumcision or intactness.

    “To target male circumcision in general will eventually also target the two religious bodies/communities that has male circumcision at the very core of their beliefs – Judaism and Islam. Both those communities have a safe and stable context in which circumcision has a place and a meaning.”

    But let’s be honest, one does not know whether a child would choose to continue this particular tradition at the expense of his own flesh. The very low rate of adults choosing circumcision for themselves suggests that this tradition would die out very quickly if consent of the subject were involved.

    FGM and MGM really are two sides of the same coin. For a scholarly analysis of both practices across cultures and time, read this.

    Fortunately, religions do change their practices over time to reflect human progress.

    Please reconsider your demeaning assertion that any male who feels genitally mutilated by their involuntary ritual circumcision is simply not viewing it in the “proper context.” Not only do many religious people regret that so much of their sex organ was cut away and wish they could have observed in a way of their own choosing (e.g. consider Jews Against Circumcision), many people choose not to follow the religion of their parent or any religion at all.

    The Genital Integrity Rights movement does not target religions, but neither does it make exceptions.

    Everyone deserves freedom of and from religion, and the right to choose for themselves whether to sacrifice some body parts for a religious purpose.

    Like

  2. Shadow Bear said

    I disagree – for two reasons:

    1. the anti-circumcision propaganda is hyped up and based on emotional arguments with little facts to it – the emotionality of those arguments in themselves disqualifies them as valid.

    2. There are plenty of adult men who undergo circumcision every day, and they don’t complain about loss of sexual pleasure post-surgery. The argument that sexual function is permanently altered is false even from a medical point of view – it is a fact that is based on an erroneuos understanding of what actually happens during intercourse.

    It is basically the same faulty argument as why using a condom is detrimental to male sexuality.

    The moisture in vagina is more than sufficient for a penis to retain its sensitivity – if that is not the case for some men, its because have not taken enough time in foreplay – a common error in many males.

    SB

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: