--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> << Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:44:53 +0100
> From: catman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Genital Mutilation - absolutely NJC
>
> I think most people do realise there is a
> difference in severity [between
> circumcision and female genital mutilation]. However
> both are wrong and one
> is not less wrong than the other. >>
>
> With all due respect, how can you say "one is not
> less wrong than the other?"
> Men who are circumcized are able to have full,
> healthy sex lives. Women who
> suffer genital mutilation suffer pain throughout
> their lives and are unable
> to enjoy sex. "Wrong" does have degrees.
>
> (Personally, I am undecided about whether
> circumcision is acceptable or not.
> On a related note, I will share that once, on a
> first date and over dinner,
> the guy made sure I knew that no son of his would
> ever be circumsized. Yes,
> he was rather an intense fellow.)
>
One of the reasons people do/used to have their baby
boys circumcised relates to medical opinion. It goes
in and out of style, or medical expertise/opinion,
whether or not circumcision is "good" medical practice
for hygenic reasons. When my son was born, we did
have him circumcised partly for this reason and partly
because my husband was circumcised. I wasn't crazy
about the idea (why hurt a newborn if it's not
necessary? they don't even use a local anaesthetic! if
men weren't meant to have foreskins, why are they born
with them, and so on?) but I figured this was a "guy
thing" and what did I know about it? If I had to do
it over again, I am quite sure I would not have done
it.
Strangely enough, our health insurance used to cover
this as a medical procedure, but it was delisted a few
years ago "unless medically necessary" (which would
mean the boy or man would probably have to have
recurring infections). When they did cover it, it was
based on medical opinion and recommendation. Same
thing when they delisted it. Plus, delisting it saved
the health plan some bucks.
Female "circumcision" involves a lot more though than
cutting off a piece of skin and is often done in
extremely unhygenic conditions. It's usually done at
puberty and, in addition to excising the clitoris, the
girl's labia are sewn up (among other things). The
girl/woman ends up having extreme difficulty with
urination/menstruation and of course childbirth and
can often end up with horrible infections, not to
mention constant pain. The purpose of it is to keep
the woman faithful to her husband because sexual
intercourse is so painful, she wouldn't even dream of
having sex with another man (let alone her husband).
As I say, if I had to do it over, I wouldn't have had
my son circumcised, but female genital mutilation is
quite a different thing.
(This is a pretty yicky thread.)
Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
