Female Circumcision Widely Practiced in Malaysia

[angeldude13]

LOL

Reminds me of the story of a village where a health worker demonstrated to a man about how to use a condom. He unrolled the condom on his thumb. A year later the health worker returned to the same village and met the same man. The man complained that condoms do not work. "Why?" asked the health worker. "Did you use it?".

"Of course" replied the disappointed man, "I wore a condom on my left thumb each and every time - just like you showed me. And my wife is pregnant with out fifth child"

I am just waiting for the time when people will put logic before there sh8tty faith.

Faith is only good to a certain point and after that it's injurious to health.

Anybody want to join me in my logicjihad/logiccrusades to convert them believers and pagans to atheism????

 

[Mad Indian]

in circumcision foreskin of penis and a minor part of clitoris in females is reduce.
in man's case foreskin consists of 60% of nerve endings and therefore removing it means less arousal/masturbation and less orgasmic pleasure.
also circumcised male have to use lube while doing intercourse and they find it hard to get stimulated while performing congress

That may be so, but there are several medical conditions which "NEED" circumcision for males.

so i say this circumcision thing is bullsh8t.i mean why would someone would want to reduce his baby's sexual pleasure??

Same reason why the Muslims lock their women up inside purdas?

also std prevention by circumcision is a myth.

IF you dont know anything about it, keep quite. there are several studies that show that the circumcision provides 50% more protection from STIs. Its a Medical fact. The very first thing we look in case of examining a case of RTI/STI is whether the penis of the male is circumcised or not. It is very significant as it increases the risk of STI transmission for both himself and his partner

you can't stop a f@cking virus from entering your peewee just by removing your penis's foreskin.i mean without foreskin penis is like more vulnerable and there is a better alternative then cutting your peewee "USE THE F@CKIN PROTECTION"
In female it is done to for the same purpose i.e less arousal and less orgasmic pleasure

Within the foreskin , there are secretions called smegma. Its physiological.But sometimes it can harbour pathogens and can contribute to development of cancer, by making the glans penis have a longer contact with the cancerous materials.

Also, Do you know that you wont develop HIV infection by having contact of HIV infected blood over your "intact" skin? But HIV infection can spread into an intact mucous membrane. By having the Foreskin, the glans has a larger time for contact with pathogens and hence a higher rate of STIs in un-circumcised males


But Clitoris has nothing to do with STIs and female circumcision has no role in preventing STIs or carcinomas. Its just mutilation of genitalia if done in females

 

[angeldude13]

That may be so, but there are several medical conditions which "NEED" circumcision for males.


Same reason why the Muslims lock their women up inside purdas?


IF you dont know anything about it, keep quite. there are several studies that show that the circumcision provides 50% more protection from STIs. Its a Medical fact. The very first thing we look in case of examining a case of RTI/STI is whether the penis of the male is circumcised or not. It is very significant as it increases the risk of STI transmission for both himself and his partner



Within the foreskin , there are secretions called smegma. Its physiological.But sometimes it can harbour pathogens and can contribute to development of cancer, by making the glans penis have a longer contact with the cancerous materials.

Also, Do you know that you wont develop HIV infection by having contact of HIV infected blood over your "intact" skin? But HIV infection can spread into an intact mucous membrane. By having the Foreskin, the glans has a larger time for contact with pathogens and hence a higher rate of STIs in un-circumcised males


But Clitoris has nothing to do with STIs and female circumcision has no role in preventing STIs or carcinomas. Its just mutilation of genitalia if done in females

As i said iam no doctor.i just read some stuff on net about circumcision and wrote down some important point here.
Articles on net suggests that circumcision preventing from std's is a myth.
if this is the case then there should have been less number of HIV cases in sub saharan africa as the highest number of circumcised male population lives there.

it's just a myth.i'll believe health articles rather than believing some one on a forum saying some biology technical terms which i don't understand
As i said most of the articles i read were said there might be some chance of it reducing hiv risk to 50% but the research is still on.
some articles even claimed that bacteria levels are high in uncircumcised penis.
most of the articles i read said that these kind of things are myths.
btw are you a doc?

 

[Known_Unknown]

Medically, Circumcised penis is far "safer" than an uncircumcised one.

Its only barbaric if no anaesthesia is used. But in most places, circumcision is done only with anaesthesia.

As far as I'm aware, penis foreskin is not an discarded remnant of evolution unlike the quasi-tailbone, appendix and others. It is there for a reason, even if medical science has not discovered its purpose yet. (Not to mention, medicine is still stuck in the Stone Age compared to other sciences).

Secondly, circumcision is barbaric whether anesthesia is used or not. I consider chopping off a part of healthy, living body tissue for some nonsensical ideological reasons abhorrent, uncivilized and barbaric. The body is a gift from nature-it has evolved and improved over millions of years, and is a beautiful work of art. It is like an old and majestic oak or banyan tree, which required eons of nuture and nourishment to reach this stage.....and to mutilate it based on stupid superstitions is despicable.

Finally, as @Razor mentioned, if circumcision has to be done at all, it should only be allowed on an adult as per his/her own free will. Infant circumcision should be banned and parents engaging in this practice should be thrown into jail for life or hanged for sexually assaulting a baby.

 

[civfanatic]

3. Yes circumcision came before and yes the HIV thingy is a way to justify circumcision. But it may be true that circumcision lowers chance of contracting AIDS. Is it true [MENTION=1078]civfanatic[/MENTION.

Yes, male circumcision does indeed reduce the risk of HIV transmission by about 50-60%. You can see this in Africa, where countries with a tradition of male circumcision have lower rates of HIV prevalence than countries where male circumcision is not commonly practiced. But circumcision by itself is not sufficient to prevent the spread of HIV at all. Anyone who is HIV positive (or whose partner is HIV positive) should not be having unprotected sex in the first place. A circumcised male still has an unacceptably high risk of contracting HIV/AIDS (40-50%), whereas a person using a condom has a much lower risk, foreskin or no foreskin.

 

[pmaitra]

• Circumcision is a Semitic practice.
• It was God's command to Abraham, and is mentioned in Genesis.
• Circumcision has nothing to do with AIDS, or prevention thereof. There was no AIDS at the time of Abraham. Anyone who suggests so is talking drivel (including certain "eminent" doctors).
• Christians are not required to circumcise, as per Corinthians, but what individuals do is different. One might as well pull off a Van Gogh.
• The Christians' equivalent of circumcision is baptism, that does not involve cutting off live tissues.

Source: Why did God command circumcision?

Personally, I think circumcision under 18 should be banned.

 

[pmaitra]

That may be so, but there are several medical conditions which "NEED" circumcision for males.

Yay! Our closet socialist is back.



Anyway, I think Abraham might have had phimosis, and he probably had a dream (to cut off his foreskin) which he interpreted as God's command, which is why he circumcised himself.

 

[bennedose]

1. Medically circumcision is required ONLY for phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) or for small growths restricted to the foreskin.
2. 50% protection against HIV is not a good enough excuse for circumcision. No doctor can advise someone to get circumcised and then have unprotected sex because of the purported benefits of circumcision.
3. Only circumcision within the first 4 weeks of life (as practised by Jews) has been shown to be somewhat protective against cancer. Adequate hygiene as in daily retraction and cleaning is as effective.

If someone wants to get circumcised for religious reasons - it is up to him, but citing medical benefits in the absence of any foreskin abnormality would not stand up among medical peers as acceptable.

As for religious reasons for circumcision, if sexual intercourse needs a minimum age of consent, it should not be acceptable to simply mutilate a child who is too young to decide. Science and rationality have always taken a back seat because of aggressive religious dictates but this needs to change.

PS: How do you circumcise a whale?
Ans: Send down four-skin divers

 

[civfanatic]

Personally, I consider both male and female circumcision to be barbaric and nothing more or less than genital mutilation.

I largely agree with Christoper Hitchens' views on the topic:

 

[kseeker]

Anyway, I think Abraham might have had phimosis, and he probably had a dream (to cut off his foreskin) which he interpreted as God's command, which is why he circumcised himself.

On a lighter note...

Once a Khaliph in Saauudii Arab told his henchmen to chop off the tip of their dicks when he was really drunk.

Henchmen announced this to their whole community that, Khaliph's command has to be followed henceforth.

Jab Daaru Ka Nasha Utar gaya, Khaliph said to himself " I can't believe, they literally chopped off their dicks !!! " and died of a heart attack due to shock

 

[Ray]

Personally, I consider both male and female circumcision to be barbaric and nothing more or less than genital mutilation.

I wouldn't go that far.

I would say, let one leave it to the person's choice once he is matured enough to realise the effect, for or against.

It is after all to be done surgically and it should not be done by barbers, but qualified surgeons, if the person wants it. The Muslim preacher can say the prayers before it is done,