This is ummmm....interesting. It almost sounds a little warped to me. Granted....I think all women need to see themselves as strong women who are capable of making good choices....but I don't think this is the way to go about teaching them this. Girls need to be brought up from an early age to respect themselves....because if we don't respect ourselves...then how can we expect anyone else to? I don't think a girl should remain "pure" for her daddy, her mommy, or for anyone but herself. I think she should view herself as something special....something worth waiting for until she is ready.....and realize that she is a one of a kind. You don't give yourself body and soul to just anyone...you give yourself to someone who deserves you. I think that is the problem with a lot of girls and women....they think if they don't give it up....then no one will want them....but that is just simply not true. As far as this purity ball stuff goes.....I think it is a ridiculous load of manure.

This is so gross. Why aren't mothers protecting the "purity" of their sons???? Ugh! Next comes what, infibulation? Why does all the wierd @stuff come out of Colorado Springs? it's embarrassing!

Infibulation? I've heard the word, but I don't remember what it means.

It's so horrifying I won't describe it here, but if anyone wants to know, here is a link which describes it. W.A.R.N.I.N.G. though it contains no photos, the description is graphic. http://www.cirp.org/pages/female/pieters1/

Horrific.... Barbaric.... there aren't strong enough words for it in my vocabulary.

Sillyakchick - is this the same as female circumcision or is it different? I did read the link you posted but now I think I may have misunderstood what female circumcision is as I thought it was what is described in the article.

Oh god, you're right. That's why I knew the word. That stuff sickens me.

Female circumcision is a different procedure, but often accompanies infibulation. I can't even describe it, it makes me shudder. They... dig out the clitoris... god it's horrific.

(Double post)

Well, that was pleasant.

I see no difference between this procedure and the western cultural practice of circumcision (of a male).

Male circumcision is entirely different: it doesn't stop sexual pleasure (in fact it enhances it) unlike infibulation; it isn't barbaric, unlike infibulation; it is healthy and clean, unlike infibulation. The list is endless.

I couldn't disagree with you more. It is a culturally accepted form of genital multilation with roots in religious dogma. There are many perceived benefits that are not so.

I invite you to check out some sites on the subject. I would post some but it is exam week and I don't have the time right now.

Here is a thread where Nataliachik posted several excellent links:

http://ehealthforum.com/health/viewtopic.p hp?t=91250&postdays=0&postorder=as c&start=0

I'll research a little more on circumcision when I have time. I'm going to be very busy next week and I'm going on holiday in two weeks on Friday (yippee! Back to my homeland for six weeks!)

Kypros.

Why, because boys are dirty little heathens - the ones with the penises are never pure. What rock have you been living under? (sarcasm) But seriously, boys have never been seen as pure - I've never known a parent that threw a fit when they found out their son was having sex. They just get a pack of condoms tossed at them and are left to their own devices...most likely because they aren't the ones who can get pregnant.

As for male circumcision, is it not considered more hygenic? A lot of guys can't be arsed to clean themselves properly when they are uncircumcized, which leads to the delicious buildup of smegma and makes a raunchy odor...which, I assume, can lead to infection. I've never really heard of any major downsides to circumcision. Also, I would hardly compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation. I'm not saying it doesn't hurt an infant to get circumcized, but it's highly highly unlikely that a baby will remember feeling that pain later in life and will not be as emotionally scarred by it, whereas FGM is done when the woman is old enough to be mentally damaged by the procedure...also, female circumcision has no health benefits and can, in fact, kill the woman if complications like hemorrhaging are not treated - male circumcision does carry some benefits.

I'm trying to be respectful about which forum we are in but this topic is a sore spot for me.

FGM's are evil, yes, but that doesn't make the horrors of MGM's any less.

Please check out this site, of which I have posted some tidbits here:
http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/mgm/facts.h tml

Early and Current Rationale
(U.S.) physicians thought it logical to perform genital surgery on both sexes to stop masturbation. This rationale was initiated in the English-speaking countries during the 19th Century.(6)
The current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice.(7) To make sons resemble their circumcised fathers, to conform socially with peers, to improve hygiene, to prevent phimosis, and as prophylaxis for infant urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS, and cancer of the penis/cervix.(
Decision Making
The circumcision decision in the U.S. is emerging as a cultural ritual rather than the result of medical misunderstanding among parents. It is more an emotional than a rational decision.(9)
Other factors affect parents’ decisions, including esthetics, cultural attitudes, social pressures and tradition.(10)
Ultimate decision may hinge on non-medical considerations.(11) Circumcision has become cultural surgery.(12)
Foreskin Function
When infant is incontinent, prepuce fulfills an essential function, to protect the glans.(13)
The foreskin is more than just penile skin necessary for a natural erection; it is specialized tissue, richly supplied with blood vessels, highly innervated, and uniquely endowed with stretch receptors. (T)he foreskin contribute(s) significantly to the sexual response of the intact male.(14)
This mucous-membrane contact [male foreskin and female labia] provides natural lubrication...and prevents dryness responsible for painful intercourse and chafing and abrasions that allow for entry of STDs, viral/bacterial.(15)
Penile Development
Development of the prepuce is incomplete in the newborn male child, and separation from the glans, rendering it retractable, does not usually occur until some time between 9 months and 3 years.(16)
(Infant) circumcision...traumatically interrupts the natural separation of the foreskin from the glans.(17)
Circumcision interferes with penile development, surgeon must tear skin from sensitive glans to permit removal.(1
Immediate Risks and Complications
Complications are often overlooked or un(der)reported. Lacerations, skin loss, skin bridges, chordee, meatitis, stenosis, urinary retention, glans necrosis, penile loss, hemorrhage, sepsis, gangrene, meningitis.(19)
Literature abounds with reports, morbidity and death from circumcision Realistic (complication) figure is 2-10%.(20)
Long-Term Adverse Outcomes
Poor surgical result is not recognized until years later. Adverse consequences of infant circumcision on men’s health must be recognized by physicians, parents & legislators.(21)
Circumcision is a subtraction, removing one-third or more of entire penile skin - tragic loss of erogenous tissue.(22)
When sexually functioning tissue is removed, sexual functioning is altered. Penile changes are documented.(23)
Of 313 circumcised male respondents, 49.5% cited a sense of parental violation, 62% expressed feelings of mutilation, and 84% reported some degree of sexual harm [progressive loss of glans sensitivity, excess stimulation needed to reach orgasm, painful coitus and impotence].(24)
Body image survey found 20% of circumcised respondents cited dissatisfaction with their circumcision.(25)
Effects of Pain
Newborn infant responses to pain are similar to but greater than those in adult subjects. The persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory.(26)
Infant circumcision causes severe, persistent pain. Acetaminophen does not ameliorate pain of circumcision.(27)
Main structures for memory are functional in neonates and circumcision pain may have long-lasting effects.(2
Maternal Bonding / Breastfeeding
Circumcision affects mother-infant interaction.(29)
When an infant is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, it conceptualizes mother as participatory and responsible regardless of mother’s intent. Consequences for impaired bonding are significant.(30)
These are the first data suggesting a protective effect of breastfeeding against UTI.(31)
Breasts also produce large quantities of a hormone (GnRH) that may aid in development of a newborn’s brain.(32)
Infants feed less frequently after circumcision; observed deterioration may contribute to breast- feeding failure.(33)
A stressful, painful event such as circumcision appears to affect the feeding patterns.(34)
Questionable Benefits
Good hygiene can offer many advantages over circumcision.(35)
Circumcision has no significant effect on the incidence of common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).(36)
Circumcision is not harmless and cannot be recommended without unequivocal proof of benefit.(37)
Not one confirmed UTI case in a normal male infant. All cases in infants with clear urinary birth defects.(3
Antimicrobial management of UTI in infants is routine and outcome generally good. It is inappropriate at this time to recommend circumcision as a routine medically indicated procedure.(39)
Reported benefits in preventing cancer and infant UTIs are insignificant compared to surgical risks.(40)
Performing 100,000 mutilative procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd.(41)
Medical Ethics
It must be recognized that the child is normal as born and that circumcision inflicts loss of a normal body part and leaves a scar. This is contrary to the motto of medicine, “First Do No Harm.”(42)
The unnecessary removal of a functioning body organ in the name of tradition, custom or any other non-disease related cause should never be acceptable to the health profession...and breaches fundamental medical ethics.(43)
Children too young to give consent must be treated as individuals. The child must live with the outcome of decision.(44)
Obstetrical Involvement
Seventy-four percent (74%) of the Ob/Gyns surveyed perform circumcision. Ob-Gyn fees for circumcision range to $400, averaging $137 nationwide.(45)
Ob-Gyns not aware of preputial structure & function or growing numbers of men undergoing foreskin restoration.(46)
Restoration Movement
In North America many circumcised men are now becoming aware of the mutilation and the harm this has done to them, and some are seeking methods of replacing the lost prepuce.(47)
At the root of this reaction lies an awareness that a perfectly normal, healthy -- indeed, the most sensually responsive -- part of their penis was surgically amputated when too young/helpless to consent, refuse or resist.(4
Children’s Rights
All childhood circumcisions are violations of human rights. ...It is the moral duty of educated professionals to protect health and rights of those with little or no social power to protect themselves.(49)
Circumcision is an issue of self-determination and autonomy.(50)
Imperative that children have the right to own their reproductive organs and to preserve natural sexual function.(51)
Circumcisions for personal preference of the parent(s) deny the infant the basic right to respect and autonomy.(52)
Every circumcision...is an assault on a child’s sexuality and a violation of his right to an intact body.(53)
Why Does It Continue?
Americans culturally acclimated/regard foreskin as non-essential, pathologic.(54)
Cultural, social and historical perspectives around infant circumcision control physicians and parents.(55)

I'm just shocked by that article

Abstinence is a choice a woman makes or chooses not to and the idea that her father "owns" her (specifically her genitals and holding a "key" to it? Disgusting) is abhorrent, are they back to offering dowry's with their daughters when they give them into the control of a husband? Awful


Birch, I have to agree with you on male circumcision, I personally don't agree with it unless there are medical reasons 9a friend at university had a circumcision at 21 because his foreskin wouldn't retract and caused him severe amounts of pain) but the 'cosmetic' ones are just pointless IMO - what do you think the child would say to having part of his penis removed if he had a say?