Circumcision

yawha · 07-08-2011 05:15PM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I suppose I don't feel overly strongly on circumcision

And this is the root of why you are accepting of it being performed by other cultures. I imagine you feel more strongly about things like stoning to death, FGM etc., and in those cases, you would not just accept these things as being traditional parts of other cultures.

I have to ask, why don't you feel strongly about it? Why do you view the foreskin as being important?

Personally, I think my foreskin is an important part of my genitalia. It facilitates masturbation easily (I always wonder, do cut guys have to use lube every time?), and is the second most sensitive part of my penis after my glans. No, if I had to have it removed for medical reasons, it would not destroy my sexual sensitivity and ruin sex for me, but I still would very much prefer to have it.

opinion guy · 07-08-2011 05:16PM

jive wrote: »

If I was a straight man at risk of getting it then yes I would...
You would obviously buy enough vaccine to provide immunity to the straight males. Why wouldn't you? Ever heard of the HPV vaccine no?

It would be more effective if you used condoms properly everytime you have sex.

Why wouldn't you ?
Do you understand the concept of herd immunity ???? If you do then the answer why not is obvious.

I have heard of the HPV vaccine. Your analogy is flawed however. The HPV vaccine is given to girls only because only girls get cervical cancer. The programs is designed to prevent cervical cancer not HPV.
In case you didn't realise it males and females can get HIV And actually even without circumcision of males - it is harder for straight males to get HIV then women - due to the mechanics of sex. The same does not apply to homosexual males for the same reasons - and indeed due to the higher rate of trauma of anal sex transmission tends to be higher.

So even if circumcision reduces transmission in straight males (something I would only accept after throughly reviewing the literature and ripping apart the papers), you are only reducing the transmission rate amongst those lowest at risk anyhow. It is very debatable what the over all effect of this would be. Quite aside from that - none of this justifies a traumatic surgical intervention of every male since it won't achieve eradiction of HIV and would have a debatable effect on overall numbers.

jive · 07-08-2011 05:30PM

opinion guy wrote: »

It would be more effective if you used condoms properly everytime you have sex.

Why wouldn't you ?
Do you understand the concept of herd immunity ???? If you do then the answer why not is obvious.

I have heard of the HPV vaccine. Your analogy is flawed however. The HPV vaccine is given to girls only because only girls get cervical cancer. The programs is designed to prevent cervical cancer not HPV.
In case you didn't realise it males and females can get HIV And actually even without circumcision of males - it is harder for straight males to get HIV then women - due to the mechanics of sex. The same does not apply to homosexual males for the same reasons - and indeed due to the higher rate of trauma of anal sex transmission tends to be higher.

So even if circumcision reduces transmission in straight males (something I would only accept after throughly reviewing the literature and ripping apart the papers), you are only reducing the transmission rate amongst those lowest at risk anyhow. It is very debatable what the over all effect of this would be. Quite aside from that - none of this justifies a traumatic surgical intervention of every male since it won't achieve eradiction of HIV and would have a debatable effect on overall numbers.

Yes I understand the concept of herd immunity no need to be so condescending. You realise you don't require 100% immunity to achieve herd immunity?

It's more difficult for straight males to get HIV, yes. But obviously with less straight males with HIV then there will in turn be a lesser chance of straight women getting HIV due to less straight men having it.

I am of the opinion that people are phucking idiots because HIV wouldn't be a problem at all if people just practiced safe sex. All they have to do is put on a condom and it must be one of the greatest failures of epidemiology that people are too thick to do this (i realise it doesn't mean 100% you won't get HIV before someone tries to go down that road).

Circumcision as a baby is about as traumatic to them as losing their umbilical chord I'd imagine. Ya want them to keep that too?

1daydreamer · 07-08-2011 06:11PM

jive wrote: »

Circumcision as a baby is about as traumatic to them as losing their umbilical chord I'd imagine. Ya want them to keep that too?

Actually, having (as a nurse in the USA) witnessed many circumcisions of infants I can tell you that hell yes it hurts them! Not only at the time but later when they pee for the first time after and they shriek. They don't get pain meds, just a bit of sugar water if they are lucky. The umbilical cord dries up and falls off on it's own in 2 weeks.
My ex had to be circumcised as an adult for medical reasons and it looked like someone had hit it with a hammer for a couple days after. He recovered of course.
From the female perspective, IMHO yes it does make a difference. It just feels better uncircumcised. More comfortable, especially if there is a hmmm size ratio issue and/or it's going to be a really long night

rubadub · 07-08-2011 07:42PM

Interestingly when you type into google "doctors against", the first suggestion is circumcision, then vaccines, "obamacare", euthanastia and then abortion.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

There is a big difference between male and female circumcision.

I see don't see much difference, can't think of a better comparison of it being a medical & religious procedure TBH, just because female circumcision is not as widely practised here you might think it is a world of difference. Just like many heavy drinkers would say many relatively safer illegal drugs are "completely different". It just appears to me to be a way to weasel out of an argument, I really can't see how you can deny the similarities.

What is so different between the 2? Can you come up with a better analogy/comparison. You do realise there are many types of female circumcision, I suppose the closest comparison to unneccesary circumcision is clitoral hood removal or labia removal. Similarly hacking off 100's or 1000's of nerve endings for no particular reason,which could have given the person better sexual pleasure. Labiaplasty or hood removal could be argued to have hygeine benefits too, I suppose you could sub in many of the pro-circumcision arguments.

Cutting the clitoris fully off is of course going to have more of an effect on sexual feeling, and this is why some religions do it. But circumcision was also used for similar reasons on boys, by John Kellogg (cornflakes) for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Drastic_measures.

Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's clitoris.

And remember the foreskin is easily stretched so many operations done for "medical reasons" could often have been treated by other non-invasive methods like stretching. -but sure that might take a few return visits to see progress, sure we'll just hack it off.

nicowa · 07-08-2011 07:43PM

Wibbs wrote: »

If he was snipped at birth how would he know what he's lost? Men snipped as adults usually get it done because of an underlying function problem, so many if not most didn't have a fully functioning penis to compare. Those who have report various results. The body will adapt and memory being what it is they can over emphasise what they've lost or indeed gained. Some men do it as part of some odd body modification fetish. Hey whatever floats your boat. That said it seems to me that he's pushing it for all the reasons outlined before and it's down to culture. Up to you, but performing an unnecessary medical procedure where losses or gains are up in the air on ones newborn strikes me as something needing more careful thought.
Right, so some religious bloke "operating" in a non sterile environment as part of some primitive blood rite is a better bet than a surgeon who has trained for years with full medical backup and anesthetic and follow up care? Seriously? If it was my kid and it was going to be done(though it would be after crawling over my dead body) I'd take the medical training, antiseptic and anesthetic route. Roman doctors were very good and highly practiced at resetting bones and other injuries, but if I fall out of a tree I'll call a bloke or blokess with the letters Dr before their names thanks.

Most surgeons (espicially in Ireland) will generally refuse to do a surgery if it's one they don't do, haven't done, very often - I'm going on anicdotal evidence here though, please don't lambast me for that. As has been said before, babies be given anesthetic, and

Many mohelim are doctors or rabbis (and some are both) or cantors. However, all are required to receive appropriate training both from the religious and medical fields. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel

so I don't think he was worried about the settings.

And while I would accept the practice based on culture and religion, I wouldn't do it if medical reason suggested otherwise, which is why I've read this thread, the one in TGC and several websites (including ones for FGM). And considering I mentioned other places I was reading about circumcision I resent the implication that I would do anything requiring a knife near my child without the proper consideration.

yawha wrote: »

Compared to what?

I was responding to the research that was quoted earlier which said that men who had been circumcised as babies felt a lessening of sensation from the age of 18.

opinion guy · 07-08-2011 08:11PM

jive wrote: »

Yes I understand the concept of herd immunity no need to be so condescending. You realise you don't require 100% immunity to achieve herd immunity?

Stop using vapid, biased, childish arguments and you'll stop thinking I'm condascending.
You do realise you need alot more than 50% ??? (Actually we are talking about less than 50% since it doesn't include gay males). It varies by disease but is usually well above 90%. So less than 50% doesn't come anywhere near that. It doesn't justify circumcising every baby.

It's more difficult for straight males to get HIV, yes. But obviously with less straight males with HIV then there will in turn be a lesser chance of straight women getting HIV due to less straight men having it.

Its not that simple. You'd have to look at detailed mathematical modelling of how the infection spreads in a given population to make any such claims. You'd also have to account for behavoural effects - if you start telling circumcised straight men they have less risk they might ditch the condoms and start shagging twice as many women and potentially make things worse.

I am of the opinion that people are phucking idiots because HIV wouldn't be a problem at all if people just practiced safe sex. All they have to do is put on a condom and it must be one of the greatest failures of epidemiology that people are too thick to do this (i realise it doesn't mean 100% you won't get HIV before someone tries to go down that road).

Well I'm glad you brought this up. Because it may have escpaped your notice but at the same time western doctors are telling people to use condoms, the Catholic church has been telling people not to that it is a horrible sin. People can be idiots. But it doesn't help when the influential religious organisations are being bigger idiots.

Circumcision as a baby is about as traumatic to them as losing their umbilical chord I'd imagine. Ya want them to keep that too?

How the hell would you know that ? As someone else said the umbilical cord falls off itself anyhow. Its designed to come off. The foreskin isn't.

Fremen · 07-08-2011 08:34PM

nicowa wrote: »

It's something I'm really reconsidering, espicially since reading online (not just here, and I've forgotten links). I'm pregnant at the moment so we're going to have to talk about it again and make a decision.

With due respect, neither you nor your husband is qualified to make that decision. Go ask a pediatrician. Better yet, ask two or three.

jive wrote: »

How can you have conclusive evidence? You argue that evolution kept the foreskin. The theory of evolution. Just like you can't prove evolution you can't prove the above. Use your head.

Sorry, you lose.

Wibbs · 07-08-2011 08:53PM

nicowa wrote: »

And while I would accept the practice based on culture and religion,

But why? Why does culture and religion trump good sense. "We've always done this" is hardly a cogent argument if you step back from it(plus Jews didn't always practice the complete removal). If your husband isn't a practicing Jew and was snipped because of medical/cultural fashion it makes even less sense. I'm sure you'd be the first to protest if you had a baby girl and family members suggested the same operation on her and you'd be right.

I wouldn't do it if medical reason suggested otherwise, which is why I've read this thread, the one in TGC and several websites (including ones for FGM). And considering I mentioned other places I was reading about circumcision I resent the implication that I would do anything requiring a knife near my child without the proper consideration.

Oh I didn't mean that, but I'd be thinking along the lines of part of the Hippocratic oath taken by Doctors, "first do no harm". Leave well alone unless there is a problem makes pretty good sense, medical or otherwise. Clearly removing a healthy part of a newborn child is doing some harm. There are far fewer nerves and functionality attached to earlobes, but if doctors or worse clerics were removing them from newborns because of cultural or religious reasons the gaol cells would fill up fast.

Now fair play nicowa you're trying to make an informed choice with research, but some morons out there even go around piercing their infants ears :eek: http://pediatrics.about.com/od/yourbabyweekbyweek/ss/baby_wk_five_9.htm and docs advise them on when? Good fcuk I'd be calling social services. It's quite common in Spain I gather. You couldn't make this stuff up.

jive · 07-08-2011 08:57PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Stop using vapid, biased, childish arguments and you'll stop thinking I'm condascending.
You do realise you need alot more than 50% ??? (Actually we are talking about less than 50% since it doesn't include gay males). It varies by disease but is usually well above 90%. So less than 50% doesn't come anywhere near that. It doesn't justify circumcising every baby.

Its not that simple. You'd have to look at detailed mathematical modelling of how the infection spreads in a given population to make any such claims. You'd also have to account for behavoural effects - if you start telling circumcised straight men they have less risk they might ditch the condoms and start shagging twice as many women and potentially make things worse.

Well I'm glad you brought this up. Because it may have escpaped your notice but at the same time western doctors are telling people to use condoms, the Catholic church has been telling people not to that it is a horrible sin. People can be idiots. But it doesn't help when the influential religious organisations are being bigger idiots.

How the hell would you know that ? As someone else said the umbilical cord falls off itself anyhow. Its designed to come off. The foreskin isn't.

Herd immunity is not usually 'well above 90%'. You can be as condescending as you want but you've just proven that I know more about herd immunity than you do and you were the one being smarmy about it.

Potentially straight men might become lax about using condoms but the reason we have this problem is a lack of the use of condoms anyway (or lack of access to condoms).

The Catholic church also says sex before marriage is a sin. What's your point? If people followed the teachings of the catholic church we wouldn't have the HIV problem that we obviously do have (although, we'd have a lot of other problems).

How would the baby who grows up know it's traumatic? They won't remember. They will be completely unaware of what is happening. For all they know that procedure could be done everyday for the rest of their lives. It might be painful but again the baby doesn't know any better. I don't think the 'traumatic' argument holds any weight.

Like I said before, personally I am against circumcision. There are a lot of worse things in the world, however, and at least circumcision appears to have some benefits.

sock puppet · 07-08-2011 09:00PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're focussing on the language rather than the findings.

That was the first google hit I got. My apologies if you find the language not to your obvioulsy high standards of critique.

Nevertheless the facts remain facts.

Well it's either a respected journal or not.

And are the facts consistent with the prevailing opinion among medical professionals? If not then why not?

opinion guy · 07-08-2011 09:06PM

jive wrote: »

Herd immunity is not usually 'well above 90%'. You can be as condescending as you want but you've just proven that I know more about herd immunity than you do and you were the one being smarmy about it.

Sigh. 90% was figure off top of my head. Figures are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
So some are lower than 90% - but none are lower than 80%.
80% is MUCH MUCH bigger than a bit less than 50%.
So the point remains valid.

Potentially straight men might become lax about using condoms but the reason we have this problem is a lack of the use of condoms anyway (or lack of access to condoms).

You've based this on ??

The Catholic church also says sex before marriage is a sin. What's your point? If people followed the teachings of the catholic church we wouldn't have the HIV problem that we obviously do have (although, we'd have a lot of other problems).

People here what they want to hear when it comes to religious matters. The 'don't use condoms' message from the catholic church is heard more louldy than the don't have sex before marriage line. If the church were to have acted morally and said - don't have sex, but if you do use a condom - things woudl be different.

How would the baby who grows up know it's traumatic? They won't remember. They will be completely unaware of what is happening. For all they know that procedure could be done everyday for the rest of their lives. It might be painful but again the baby doesn't know any better. I don't think the 'traumatic' argument holds any weight.

I meant traumatic in the medical sense not the psychological sense. i.e. it is a physical injury with physical conseqeunces done to the body.

Like I said before, personally I am against circumcision. There are a lot of worse things in the world, however, and at least circumcision appears to have some benefits.

If you are against it - why are you over exaggerating a supposed benefit of it ?

Sierra 117 · 07-08-2011 10:25PM

I am against circumcision. It's mutilation. Mutilation for the sake of few benefits. Parents should not have the power to have this procedure performed on their children.

jive · 07-08-2011 11:01PM

opinion guy wrote: »

You've based this on ??

If you are against it - why are you over exaggerating a supposed benefit of it ?

Based on the fact that one of the greatest failures of epidemiology is that the majority of cases could be prevented through the use of a bit of latex.

I'm not over exaggerating anything. I'm saying it has benefits, people have said it had none which isn't true or so the evidence we have suggests. Do I think the supposed benefits outweigh the risk? Personally, no. That's why I'm against it. I couldn't care less if it is concerned mutilation or whatever as there are a lot worse problems out there.

thebigleap · 08-08-2011 04:11AM

sock puppet wrote: »

Well it's either a respected journal or not.?

Yes it is. It's one of four volumes of an academic journal on the physical, mental and emotional growth of boys, whose findings were contributed AND reviewed by experts in each area of discussion, ie, medical professionals, teachers, lawyers, etc.

And are the facts consistent with the prevailing opinion among medical professionals? If not then why not?

Why not? Two reasons: money and religion. In the US a circumcision is performed every three seconds (approx);that's a lot of revenue on an annual basis. And a lot of money to lose if medical professionals en masse spoke out against circumcision. There are also many, many Jewish and Muslim doctors who believe in circumcision as part of their religion so they're hardly going to speak out either. Despite those challenges, there are many doctors who are against circumcision and the numbers are growing. There's a website called Doctors Opposing Circumision that offers a lot of important and accurate info about circumcision: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

hatrickpatrick · 08-08-2011 06:36AM

Jumpy wrote: »

Because it prevents possible issues later in life.

So should we amputate babies' feet then, just in case they end up getting athlete's foot?
Nothing you can get because of your foreskin can't be treated.

Also a hygiene thing.

Great, so should we remove babies' ears too since built up earwax is fairly unhygenic?

The foreskin is an important aspect of sexual response and removal of it is utterly barbaric in every possible way.
Imagine if people were removing their little girls' clitoral hoods (analogous to the foreskin) at birth... There would be international uproar and cries of FGM over each and every case. But oh no, nothing wrong with taking a knife to someone's genitals as long as it's a guy, right?
:mad:

hatrickpatrick · 08-08-2011 06:40AM

Let me add to my above post. Any PERMANENT surgical procedure on ANY infant which is not medically ESSENTIAL (IE, not just a "might be good later, MIGHT be") should not be allowed. Wait until they're old enough to decide whether or not to butcher themselves.

hatrickpatrick · 08-08-2011 06:50AM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

That post just reeks of ignorance and hatred,

I wouldn't be a big fan of it and only consider it on medical grounds. But I do recognise that different cultures do it for different reasons and I wouldn't necessary knock them for it.

Honour killings, female circumcision, animal sacrifices, and a whole bunch of other barbaric things are done on "cultural" grounds. Does that make them ok?

If a culture insists on barbaric rituals, then it is a barbaric culture.

Chuck Stone · 08-08-2011 08:45AM

jive wrote: »

How can you have conclusive evidence? You argue that evolution kept the foreskin. The theory of evolution. Just like you can't prove evolution you can't prove the above. Use your head

This line ^^ is probably some sort of fallacy. We can't categorically prove multitudes of things. Just because something is a theroy does not mean it's simply a baseless idea. There's huge evidence for the theory of evolution. It has come about because of masses of empirical evidence.

You do yourself no favours taking that line.

Circumcision as a baby is about as traumatic to them as losing their umbilical chord I'd imagine. Ya want them to keep that too?

This ^^ is laughable nonsense.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If a culture insists on barbaric rituals, then it is a barbaric culture.

I think it's better to describe genital mutilation as a barbaric practice rather than descrbing the entire cultures which practice it as as barbaric.

I think labelling entire cultures as barbaric just becomes fodder for haters which I think we should try to avoid.

Better to try to stop such practices by calm reasoned debate (My original post which Mickey Dolenz called me out on was a little OTT if I'm honest with myself).

sock puppet · 08-08-2011 01:43PM

thebigleap wrote: »

Yes it is. It's one of four volumes of an academic journal on the physical, mental and emotional growth of boys, whose findings were contributed AND reviewed by experts in each area of discussion, ie, medical professionals, teachers, lawyers, etc.

I probably should have put medical journal there, because it most certainly isn't one. Secondly the author doesn't even have any relevant qualifications.

Chuck Stone · 08-08-2011 02:46PM

sock puppet wrote: »

I probably should have put medical journal there, because it most certainly isn't one. Secondly the author doesn't even have any relevant qualifications.

THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90

LOST BOYS: AN ESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS

- Dan Bollinger

Abstract: Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Loads of medical journal stuff questioning circumcision. Loads.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/letters.html

I've just taken a glance at the titles and clicked on a couple to see if the links were okay and they seem to be fine.

Wibbs · 08-08-2011 04:29PM

Didn't you get the memo Chuck? It's not barbaric and daft because we do it in the west. In hospitals no less. FGM is barbaric because well the primitives "out there" do it. But hang on, both are culturally based so why is one OK and one is vilified? Mad eh?

CrazyRabbit · 08-08-2011 04:31PM

jive wrote: »

Circumcision as a baby is about as traumatic to them as losing their umbilical chord I'd imagine. Ya want them to keep that too?

When the foreskin starts falling off naturally, like the umbilical chord, I'll discontinue my opposition to circumcision.

CrazyRabbit · 08-08-2011 04:33PM

OK HatrickPatrick...you win.

http://omg.wthax.org/thanks_9.jpg

sensibleken · 08-08-2011 05:53PM

It makes healing genital piercings easier thats for certain.

Honestly, Im cut and really dont care. Ive known several guys who are the same. Is this a case of people being outraged on others behalf?

CrazyRabbit · 08-08-2011 06:00PM

sensibleken wrote: »

It makes healing genital piercings easier thats for certain.

Honestly, Im cut and really dont care. Ive known several guys who are the same. Is this a case of people being outraged on others behalf?

It's about being outraged on behalf of those who can't even speak yet.

yawha · 12-08-2011 12:47AM

sensibleken wrote: »

It makes healing genital piercings easier thats for certain.

Honestly, Im cut and really dont care. Ive known several guys who are the same. Is this a case of people being outraged on others behalf?

CrazyRabbit nailed it above. It's routine infant circumcision that we're outraged by, not circumcision in general.

Circumcision isn't life-ruining. I would say most guys who are circumcised don't care about it, but that doesn't make it a benign procedure that can ethically be routinely performed on infants.

Also, in nearly every circumcision thread I've read online, I've seen circumcised guys get extremely defensive of their circumcision, and yeah, you don't really see many circumcised guys arguing passionately against it, but I think the reason for this is obvious enough. Most guys will be reluctant to argue for something that might imply that their penis is defective, or suboptimal.

It's a tough one tbh. Personally, while very much against the idea of routine infant circumcision, I don't want to make circumcised guys feel bad by arguing against it. At the same time, I don't think it should be normalised as a mere preference or benign difference...

dark crystal · 12-08-2011 01:12AM

My fiance is circumsised - he had the procedure out of necessity when he was 21.

We have a young son and there's no way in hell we would ever even consider inflicting such pain on him for no medical reason whatsoever.

If he wishes to have a circumsision when he was old enough to decide for himself, on the advice of a doctor, then I don't see a problem with it at all.

But to chop off a part of his anatomy in infancy for no good reason, is beyond my comprehension.

opinion guy · 01-09-2011 11:49AM

Wow:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14744941

Zimbabwe MPs shun Thokozani Khope's circumcision call

Thokozani Khupe's suggestion is not going down well with her fellow MDC MPs

Zimbabwe's male MPs are not enthusiastic about a call for them to be circumcised to set an example in the fight against Aids, the BBC has found.
Deputy Prime Minister Thokozani Khupe made the call, following evidence that circumcised men are 60% less likely to get infected with HIV.
Of eight MPs the BBC spoke to, only one said he would heed her suggestion.
One called it "madness", while another said he was setting a good example through his behaviour.
Zimbabwe is one of the countries worst hit by Aids and the government last year launched a campaign to circumcise up to 80% of the country's young men - some three million people.
The World Health Organization is encouraging men to get circumcised following studies in other African countries.
Aids experts, however, warn that using a condom, abstaining from sex or being faithful to one partner offer far greater protection against HIV infection.
'Circumcision of the mind' Minister of National Healing Moses Mzila Ndlovu told the BBC's Brian Hungwe in Harare that some of his cabinet colleagues had described Ms Khupe's suggestion as "madness" and "bizarre".
"I don't see many takers but I'm not stopping anyone," he said.
His colleague Nelson Chamisa said it should be a matter of individual choice.
"It has to be a circumcision of the mind rather than circumcision of the organ," he said.
Edgar Mbwembwe, from Zanu-PF, was the only legislator who said he would go ahead with the procedure.
Another, Willias Madzamure, said the call was a good idea and said he was "seriously considering" it but did not firmly commit himself.
Two female MPs backed Ms Khupe.
Jessie Majome said: "Politicians, especially elected politicians, have a responsibility beyond the personal - they would set a good example if they did so."
Only a few of Zimbabwe's ethnic groups practise circumcision for cultural reasons.

In an aside the WHO need a boot up the arse

moomooman · 01-09-2011 12:49PM

Its often forgotten that the people in the medical establishment in the UK and USA who pushed for male circumcision in the late 1800's were the eugenicist types who were concerned about the growing urban underclass of unhealthy and unfit poor. They were mostly unfit for military service and they were considered a potential timebomb in terms of revolution.

So many prominent intellectual types advocated the circumcision of boys and girls to reduce their sexual pleasure and thus lower the birth rate among the lower class urban poor and also prevent masturbation, which they believed caused physical enfeeblement and madness :rolleyes:

So they advocated the circumcision of boys that goes on today but also using concentrated citric acid to dissolve the clitoris in baby girls... This practice was only abandoned after a couple of decades after they realised that these women dervied little or no pleasure from sex and thus wouldnt have enough children to keep the armies and factories going. This is why circumcision never became widespread in the UK, but as others pointed out eugenics and other bizarre medical practices remained far more prominent in the USA.

Circumcision

Comments