13 year old forced to have circumcision

---

i have to agree with no1 on this one. A male circumcision is relatively better in the shape that the male still retains feeling is his gland. where as they remove the clitoris itself in some cases. They even give it a different name for f**ks sake. FGM, female genital mutalation, as opposed to female circumcision.

I see no problem if you want to post the link, Nazgul.

So, even though circumcision in the case of the 13-year-old is not as bad as a clitoridectomy (excision of the clitoris), the boy didn't want it. How about if the parents just broke his leg instead? Maybe that would be a sufficient covenant with God.Forcing a 13-year-old to have a circumcision (i.e., unwanted, unnecessary surgery) is abusive any way you look at it. But when religion comes into play, logic flies out the window.

it's not just a covenant with God, it's a passage from childhood to manhood. You can not despise something from another culture purely based on what you think is right or wrong.

In reply to:You can not despise something from another culture purely based on what you think is right or wrong.Then I can't despise female genital mutilation, or lynching, since at different times and places, they are culturally accepted? Are there no absolute bounds to behavior, because everything is relative? If circumcision is a part of my culture, am I allowed to have a problem with it? Are you totally cool with Sharia law?There are a lot of traditions that are just plain stupid. Performing an unneeded surgery (with its inherent risks) when there's no medical indication for it is one of those. The fact that there's evidence that it has an adverse effect on sensation makes it that much worse.(For what it's worth, I was circumcised in a traditional ritual. I was unable to defend myself as an infant.)

In reply to: I see no problem if you want to post the link, Nazgul. Thanks. I wasn't sure if you welcomed off site links. 13 year old forced to undergo circumcision 13 Year old forced to undergo circumcision - another thread from different site

Lynching? lol are you just throwing out what ever you feel like? Taking a life based on color, is a lot different than take foreskin.

off site links are fine as long as they perform to a "medical nature", they give "required information" to a question or topic.

In reply to:Lynching? lol are you just throwing out what ever you feel like? Taking a life based on color, is a lot different than take foreskin.Slapping me silly is a lot different than shooting me in the head, but they're both bad. Many people think circumcision, especially if forced, is a problem. It's not as bad as a clitoridectomy, but it's still bad.I'm trying to make the point that just because something is traditional, it doesn't mean it's acceptable by modern civilized standards.If you thought I was saying that circumcision is morally equivalent to lynching, then you missed the point.

Clitoridotomy is no worse than male circumcision. All the different kinds of female circumcision have been grouped together when in actuality, they are very different. A Type I female circumcision, known as clitoridotomy, is the removal of the clitoral hood. The clitoral hood is homologous with the male foreskin. It covers the clitoris in the same way that the foreskin covers the glans. I agree that the other types of female circumcision are mutiliations (stitching up the vagina, excising the clitoris etc.). But clitoridotomy is no worse than male circumcision.

ok i see your point(s) but what's so unacceptable about male circumcision? other than the fact that YOU think it's unnecessary? Forget about the fact that this specific boy did not want it done. To Nazgul, has this specific boy suffered ANY more after all has healed, and time has elapsed?

In reply to:Forget about the fact that this specific boy did not want it done.That is the key issue in the 13-year-olds's case.But there is also the risk of surgical complications (from a medically unnecessary procedure, no less). And there is good evidence that circumcision diminishes sensitivity.It would certainly be difficult to make the case that it increases sensitivity.

You're nitpicking a bit here. I was going by the everyday-dictionary definition of clitoridotomy. I made it clear that I was discussing the surgical excision of the clitoris. And as far as I know, the medical definition matches the dictionary definition. What is your source of information?Anyway, you've succeeded in completly missing the point.

i'm just gonna ask one more question, then i'm going to stop with this...there are risks of complications in all surgeries...you know this, i know you know this. Do you advise people to stop all types of unnecessary procedures simply because of the fact that "complications" may occur? to name a few, getting tonsils removed, a woman having her "tubes tied", a person having their adnoids taken out...all because of the chance of complication? I'm willing to bet that the parents, more specifically the father, went through the same thing...of course he did. Why would a parent who, according to Nazgul, doesn't really practice the muslim faith, knows the amount of sensitivity loss that is inherent in such a procedure - still have his son go through it? Or perhaps there is a reason it is done before puberty? Maybe the amount of sensitivity that is lost, is not as much as people think it may be? ok, i'm finished.

In reply to:Do you advise people to stop all types of unnecessary procedures simply because of the fact that "complications" may occur?Unnecessary surgery should not be perfomed without the receiver giving their informed consent. Would it be ethical for a girl's parents to force their daughter to have a boob job?If someone wants a circumcision, they should be free to get it, as long as it's with their informed consent. Same with other forms of plastic surgery.And who gets an unnecessary tonsilectomy these days?In reply to:Maybe the amount of sensitivity that is lost, is not as much as people think it may be?How do you know? And why risk it? As I said, it certainly can't be shown to increase sensitivity.Do you really think you've made a good case for why the 13-year-old should have been forced into a circumcision?

I don't know...that's why i posed it as a question. How can you be so sure yourself, as you are so firmly against it. You said you yourself had it done when you were an infant. Should you yourself have a thread dedicated to you because you sure didn't give consent. Besides, if you read the messages on these boards, the sensitivity question gets mixed reviews. How can you pass, "you lose so much sentivity" as fact when there are those who clearly dissprove it?

In reply to:How can you be so sure yourself, as you are so firmly against it.I'm not sure. That's the point! As you said, it gets mixed reviews from the people who post here, who are not research scientists. Have you actually read about the subject beyond what's posted here? There is strong evidence that the glans loses sensitivity when the foreskin is removed, and that the foreskin itself is sensitive. Do I need to do your research for you and cite articles and papers? Or do we just flush the science, because the bible is all we need?So, even if there's debate, why take a chance with the unnecessary procedure that circumcision is? Are you a gambler?If you're a fundamentalist, anything I say about evolution might be pointless, but I'll try. There's a good chance that the foreskin serves some purpose if it evolved to be there. Or do you think God is playing a game (I'll put it there, you cut it off.)?

In reply to: To Nazgul, has this specific boy suffered ANY more after all has healed, and time has elapsed? He is having problems maintaining an erection and has not been able to orgasm since the circumcision.He posted this March 23. This is post #54 from the first link I posted: In reply to: OK Time to post some facts about my circumcision. Just for those who dont knowI was circumcised on Febuary 2nd, 2005. A little more than 1 month before my 14th birthday. I have not started puberty yet, and I was circumcised beacuse of a relegious belief.To help with the healing of my circumcision i was given medication to reduce and or nullify erections. Just recently i have been able to start getting frequent erections again, however they often dont last very long. Add to that I have another problem. Im having problems masturbating... I cant do it now... it just DOESNT work... i used to use 2 fingers, my thumb and forefinger and i would pinch the foreskin and reteract it and so forth... I would orgasm in less than 5 minutes always. sometimes less than a minute, but now i dont have the skin left... so i tried using the two fingers... it was WAYYY too dry.. So I tried using some lube and it kept slipping off and i coudlnt keep on it. sooo I tried using my whole hand with lube and im not big enough to get a full grip on it. so I dont know WTF to do, and im SOOO fustrated over it its pissing me offAdd to that... My head used to be so damp and moist that someone said it looked like it was going to drip with moisture... now its all wrinkled and dry, even after not only 2 months.... Ive already lost NOTICEABLE sensitivity... I used to be able to pull my foreskin back and play with my head and it was sensitive enough that I would be able to orgasm like that, now even with lube it really doesnt have the feeling that it used to have. It feels good, but... It doesnt have ANYWHERE near the intensity... and this is only after 2 months.This post is the facts of the physical aspects. It does not cover the mental aspects of the shame that I went thru to get the procedure done. This is from post #52: In reply to: My relationshp with dad has never been good and this basically cut the ties... i dont know if we will ever be friends to say. I respect him as my father but thats about it. And this is from the second link: In reply to: All I want immeditly is to be able to JO again, and that still has yet to happen beacuse of the medications and lack of time that I can experiment with the new styles, etc. I already have plans to look into restoration whenever im 18, It wont be the same thing of course... but, hopefully it will be some releif.

Ah, Nazgul, I admire your having added this thread to the forum. The several comments, however, have included misperceptions of the facts, a few of which I would like to address:

1. Circumcision, or genital mutilation, is NOT a requirement of the Muslim faith. Nowhere in the Qur'an is circumcision mentioned. Indeed, Mohammed was born, lived, and died with an intact penis. Circumcision, instead, is a largely unquestioned tradition in a few primitive societies, just as it has been in the USA for the past fifty years.

2. The forcible mutilation of this boy's genitals is an example of child abuse, by definition. His circumcision violates several articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. To quote:

Article 6: States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
("development" to include normal physical, mental, and emotional growth).

Article 16: No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy ...

Article 19: States Parties shall take all appropriate ... measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s)...

Article 24: States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudical to the health of children.

3. A passage from childhood to manhood characterized by genital mutilation is inhuman, arbitrary, unfair, cruel, and sadistic treatment. Whether or not the procedure is traditional, it is unbecoming to a civilized, cultured society.

4. The loss of the foreskin emasculates a man, as the prepuce is essential to a normal sex life, its various parts having been designed for integral use. It's loss negatively affects the normal sexual relationship between the male and female. As such, circumcision may be accurately compared to a loss of limb.

5. Genital mutilation, or circumcision, is not a surgical procedure, surgery being a practice concerned with the correction of deformities and defects, or the repair of injuries. Genital mutilation is, simply, genital mutilation.

Korydon

In reply to:Circumcision, or genital mutilation, is NOT a requirement of the Muslim faith.I don't think anyone said it was. It just happens to be common in North African Muslim countries. I don't know where else it is practiced (although it used to be a Victorian form of masturbation prevention for females).From a "lawyerly" perspective, it would be rather difficult to make a legal case on those articles, except perhaps Article 24.In reply to:Whether or not the procedure is traditional, it is unbecoming to a civilized, cultured society.Yes, you could make a good argument for this point.In reply to:the prepuce is essential to a normal sex lifeIt might interfere with a satisfactory sex life, but either it's not quite true, or a lot of circumcised men are deluding themselves.In reply to:Genital mutilation, or circumcision, is not a surgical procedure, surgery being a practice concerned with the correction of deformities and defects, or the repair of injuries.How about breast augmentation, nose jobs, face lifts, etc.? They're usually solely for aesthetic reasons. But informed consent is given. That is the key. You might like to have the opportunity to persuade a man not to get circumcised, but ultimately, the choice should be his.