At 08:02 PM 9/2/2012, Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:46 AM, shag carpet bomb <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
> > This was from the MRA - men's rights activist - crowd. *shrug*
>
>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
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)