There are far more effective ways to prevent sexual infection, than genital mutilation of newborn babies.
(BTW, I'm no "advocate", and there's obviously more pressing issues in the world. I've almost never spoken of this, and this is the first time I've done so publicly. But genital mutilation is simply what it is. And it is an unnecessary surgical procedure on an unconsenting child. Surgery on someone who just got born?)
I am happy to accept (radical) feminist arguments pro/con. My understanding is that:
* Unless we accept biological essentialism, newborns get a break on
being responsible for the male role society will soon teach them.
* Rights of babies aren't automatically trumped by rights of females.
* Children suffer much pain which adults don't care about. In this
case, adults are the oppressing class regardless of gender.
* FWIW, a female just mentioned to me the argument that unclean women
have "smegma" too, and this is no argument to circumsize girls. (She
also informed me that male circumcision may make sense for desert
people with little access to water for hygiene, which may explain
the religious practices, but that's far from our reality.)
All the best,
Tj
On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:33 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> Unnecessary, painful surgery on unconsenting, youngest possible
> children. Absent unusual circumstances, seems like a simple choice to
> me.
>
> --------------
>
> Well, it seems that the issue is precisely whether it is unnecessary.
>
> Interesting that the issue is spoken of here only in terms of its benefits/dangers to men. But in fact, the issue affects both women and men.
>
> Gentlemen!
>
> The penis does not live alone but finds its way into orifices where it brings much joy and, sometimes, trouble.
>
> The problem is that an uncircumcised, unwashed penis is a vector for infection and repeated infections can be a cause of more serious problems for women and men.
>
> Good hygiene can prevent most of these problems, but guys tend to be slobs, and so the risk of infection is higher for the uncircumcised than the circumcised penis.
>
> So there's something to be said in favor of circumcision. Done shortly after birth, it is far less dangerous and heals much faster than done later in life. So, one must weight the pain of the initial procedure versus the pain of repeated infections later in life both for the man and his partner.
>
> Some men report great loss of sensitivity as a result of circumcision. About this, I know little. 95% of the men I slept with were circumcised, and I did not notice any appreciable loss of sensitivity.
>
> Joanna
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk