Good point. I. hate. MRAs. Those Special Forces of patriarchy. My concerns were about babies and ageism, not males older than 1 month. Their use of this issue makes me hesitate to mention it again. I mean, child abuse is a far, far worse problem.
None of this "But what about the menz!?" derailing for me.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:23 AM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> 3. "Genital mutilation" is a strong term. I see a difference between getting rid of a foreskin and getting rid of the clitoris/vulva and sewing the vagina shut.
Hmm, I can see why that helpful female (mentioned earlier) preemptively informed me that such things like "pharaonic circumcision" aren't the only kind of female circumcision. (One of her examples was removal of "only" the clitoral hood, which too is genital mutilation.) Apparently when you try to bring up "our" genital mutilation — taking knife to genitals — people bring up "their" 3rd world mutilation. (Regardless how we westerners have an interest in maintaining regressive elements in those countries, or kill many of their children via military or economic means.)
Anyway, on one hand this topic is used by MRAs; and on the other hand, I believe it brings out ageism in adults. Feeling tired and sick to my stomach. Sorry for participating in this. I'm out.
Tj
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:23 AM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> 1. I agree that, ideally, we should not make irrevocable decisions for babies. Though we do in the case of vaccinations.
>
> 2. It's not about rights of women trumping rights of babies. I think it's a fact that penile cancer is lower for circumcised men. I also think it's a fact that rates of vaginal and bladder infections are higher for women consorting with unc. men. And rates of infection are generally higher for unc men. So we're talking about stuff that affects both men and women.
>
> 3. "Genital mutilation" is a strong term. I see a difference between getting rid of a foreskin and getting rid of the clitoris/vulva and sewing the vagina shut.
>
> 4. Anesthetics could help with the pain.
>
> I don't think there's a universally correct answer. I had my son circumcised shortly after birth for health reasons. If I had to do it all over again, I'm not sure what I would do.
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:33 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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