Circumcision and Female genital mutilation.

Both desensitise the victims genitals and have an irreversible, detrimental affect on sexual function.

Both are widely practised in accordance with teaching of Judaism and Islam.

Both are carried out on infants. No choice is given.

If the only difference is that one applies to male infants and the other applies to female infants, why is one of them legal everywhere, socially accepted by all and the other isn't? I thought equality was the thing these days, no?

oh yeah, it's a loving religion! They treat women worse than dogs still sell them on auction blocks. Thats why they have sex with kids for fun and women are just to conceive, they don't need to have fun!


peace silvi

\thats not really what this about silvi. You obviously have an axe to grind about certain religious groups - that isn't the point here. I was simply pointing out the religious connection to genital mutilation. Atheists may elect to have their male children circumcised too... and even have it done free on the national health service here in Britain but to do the equivalent to a female would be unthinkable in the minds of those who have no problem with it being done to a boy. THATS the point but thanks for bumping the thread I guess

i dont have any opinion really but with my circumcision i know my royal penis is clean! Eddie Murphy coming to America reference

jokes aside i dont know know about female genital mutalation.didnt know any guy does.i can say that my penis is good looking and females like it and its easier to clean.thats all i know

Im just here to check a pm, lol...

Here's a difference... circ. is traditionally done at birth, in a hospital, w no memory of the event for the rest of one's life. It was done under the misguided medical belief that it was more hygienic, which is why we see it in the us and uk w such frequency. I am not religious, but was circ, and until later in life, never even knew what the word meant, let alone that i was cut at birth.

Flip that for girls... it is often done up until puberty, and sometimes afterwards. It is also often done at birth, but nonetheless, is also often done on fully aware and developing children who will have significant psychological trauma to go along w the physical. There will be longterm and real consequences. Also, there is zero medical rwasonong behind it, misguided or otherwise... it is men dominating women. All of it is tied to sexuality and control, with the men determining everything from meaning to action.

Sure, we can make a very rational argument against curc, but it isnt even in the same category as fgm... though i teally dont know the religious foundation for this behavior from the jewish perspective, so i am speaking from a position of practical application. It isnt the same thing, in application, nor effect.

ok im lost.what could be wrong with circumsition and i got no fuckening clue what you guys are talkning about with females.do they cut there clits?im really clueless.no joke

I'm glad I was circumcised.

shithawk420 said:

ok im lost.what could be wrong with circumsition and i got no fuckening clue what you guys are talkning about with females.do they cut there clits?im really clueless.no joke

Click to expand...

Female genital mutilation varies... Some places remove just the clit, and at it's most extreme everything external is removed. It seems to be mostly an African & Middle Eastern practice but some parts of Asia practice this as well. The extent that some countries practice this is pretty disturbing... in many North/Eastern African countries (Somalia, Djibouti, Mali, Sierra Leone, etc) more than 90%+ of women have undergone this procedure.

jeez.i didnt know.reminds me when the chinese used to break womens feet to keep them small

It's grievous bodily harm (G.B.H.).....usually committed against a child, and without consent.

In male circumcision 50,000+ nerve endings are lost along with the 'foreskin', which is part of a penis used to cover/shield the glans, and plays a distinct role to help sensitize the glans during coitus/foreplay etc.......The foreskin is there for a reason, and it is quite simple to keep it clean.


In female circumcision, there are 3 levels of butchery. 1. The clitoris is removed.....2. Clitoris and labia removed. 3. Clitoral/labial removal and vagina stitched up leaving a hole hardly big enough for the child to urinate or menstruate thru.....which can lead to many internal complications.

Chopping useful bits off kids cannot be justified as being anything more than ASSAULT against CHILDREN.....and anyone caught doing it should immediately be jailed.

Spaventa said:

\thats not really what this about silvi. You obviously have an axe to grind about certain religious groups - that isn't the point here. I was simply pointing out the religious connection to genital mutilation.

Click to expand...

And the winner is...

What Is Oral Suction Circumcision and Where Does It Come From?

Health officials have reached a tentative agreement with New York City's ultra-Orthodox community over regulating the controversial practice known as metzitzah b'peh, or "oral suction circumcisions," the Associated Press reported Tuesday.

The tradition of metzitzah b'peh goes back to biblical times but has created a modern-day dilemma for religiously observant mankind. New York City officials linked the practice to 17 cases of infant herpes since 2000, of whom two died. In the latest development, the city will stop requiring mohels who use oral suction to have parents sign consent forms, which many hadn't complied with anyway. Instead the city will focus its efforts on educating members of the ultra-Orthodox community about the risks and dangers of the practice. "Our goal is to achieve awareness of the risks," city representative Avi Fink stated.

What is oral suction circumcision, or metzitzah b'peh, and where did it come from?

Though to a small number of observant communities, the practice is routine and normal, to cosmopolitan sophisticates it may seem pretty gruesome. After the mohel cuts off the foreskin, he uses his mouth – oral suction, rather than say a sponge - to effectively clear the wound on the baby's penis of blood, lest it clot and decay.

As for where it arose, metzitzah b'peh is a time-honored tradition codified in the most important Jewish scripts, much like circumcision itself.

Ancient Greek medical theory

We first encounter the practice in the Mishnah, the first compendium of laws of rabbinic Judaism (c. 200 CE): “We perform all the requirements of circumcision on the Sabbath: We circumcise, uncover, suck, and place a compress with cumin on it” (Sabbath 19b).

The critical word here is the Hebrew word for suck: metzitzah.

In the Talmudic commentary on this passage in the Mishnah (Shabbat 133b), the 4th century rabbi Papa of Babylon writes that failure to perform this suction is dangerous for the baby, and any mohel who neglects to perform the ritual should be fired.

In other words, the rabbis viewed metzitzah as a health measure. Their thesis of medicine and disease was informed by the prevailing theory of the time - Hippocrates' theory of the four humors, authoritatively expanded upon by the prominent Greek physician Galen in the 2nd century.

One of the main treatments Galen prescribed for an assortment of ailments was bleeding, which he believed was a way to restore the "equilibrium" between blood and the other three humors - phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. He also believed that stagnating blood decays.

Specifically when it came to treating wounds, his theory led Galen to prescribe that blood be prevented from building up in and around the wound, lest it clot and rot, causing the wound in turn to rot.

Oral suction then, seems to have developed as a way to ensure that the circumcised baby is properly bled, that no clots form and cause decay, and that all his humors are in equilibrium.

The science of medicine and outbreaks

Jews obeyed this health directive for generations. But by the 19th century, science had acknowledged the microscopic agents of disease, the theory of the four humors was contested and the science of medicine began to change.

A turning point came in 1836, when an outbreak of sickness was observed among newborn Jewish babies in Vienna.

Rabbi Elazar Horowitz observed that all the infants, some of whom died from the illness, had all been circumcised by the same mohel. Moreover, all exhibited the same symptoms - an outbreak on their skin that progressed from their penis to the rest of the body.

Horowitz consulted with doctors, who postulated that the oral suction could be the origin of the trouble. His friend Dr. S. Wertheim, chief physician at the city’s Jewish hospital, suggested that the same cleansing, suction effect could be achieved by use of a wine-soaked sponge applied to the incision while the mohel pressed down on the penis.

Horowitz then wrote to his rabbi, Moses Sofer, the head of the Bratislava Yeshiva - one of the most important rabbis of the day - asking for guidance on whether to instruct his flock to stop using oral suction and use Dr. Wertheim’s method instead. Rabbi Sofer replied early in 1837 that the new method was acceptable, based on careful study of the etymology of the Hebrew and Aramaic verbs for suck – matzatz.

The word implied suction, Sofer wrote - but not necessarily with the mouth. If anything, the method of circumcision itself had already changed, the rabbi pointed out: the Mishnah calls for the use of cumin in the bandage protecting the circumcised penis, but over the generations, the spice had been replaced by other substances.

Following Sofer's authoritative decision, during the 19th century, many rabbis began to instruct their community mohels to forgo oral suction and use other methods, though some leading figures in the ultra-Orthodox community argued that metzitzah b'peh was part of the commandment to circumcise and thus could not be omitted or altered.

In the late 19th century, as the West recognized the role of microscopic agents in disease, studies began to appear in medical journals tying oral suction to infant illness and mortality.

These days the practice is very rare, having been replaced, when at all, by alternative methods of suction.

Yet a minority of mohels in the ultra-Orthodox community continue to practice metzitzah b'peh, insisting that otherwise they would not be following the full letter of the law, and citing the Rabbi Papa saying that a mohel who doesn’t do so should be dismissed. Also, suction with the mouth is more efficient than trying to achieve it with, say, a dry cloth, they explain. And at least 11 infant boys contracted herpes in New York City since 2000, and two died. It seems that for some infants the exact meaning of the word metzitzah is the difference between life and death.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-what-is-oral-suction-circumcision-1.5311796

Yeah, this is some REALLY SICK SHIT.....Rabbi's sucking a baby's dick that has just been circumcised!......

I'm fairly certain that cultural difference isn't a reason to judge.

Personally I think it is disturbing to even consider female alteration yet find circumcision innocuous.

We aren't the same.

That used to be okay.

Did I miss something or is it becoming uncool to live and let live?

Does the baby/kid/young man/woman understand that because of 'Cultural Differences' they have to have chunks of their genitals hacked off?.......and do they even know that other people are not required to have their major sensory and reproductive organ surgically desensitized/cut/trimmed/maimed and butchered often by someone who has no proper surgical training?

As modern free-thinking people, are we supposed to endorse this kind of barbarity towards children by letting it take place amongst us?......all in the name of 'Cultural Diversity?'....

Live and let live you say.....do millions of kids have to be surgically abused for us to 'Live and Let Live?'....

mean mr.mustard said:

I'm fairly certain that cultural difference isn't a reason to judge.

Personally I think it is disturbing to even consider female alteration yet find circumcision innocuous.

We aren't the same.

That used to be okay.

Did I miss something or is it becoming uncool to live and let live?

Click to expand...

Barbaric practice. It's time we evolved and stopped it.

I’m not even sure WHY this is interesting!

Doc cut too much of mine off. Fucker!

I agree, however, that an infant that is unable to consent, is likely being abused.

The charge is that circumcision is for cleanliness.
I don’t buy it.

Circumcised or not, want to keep your dick clean watch where you put it. There have been botched circumcisions where males were made to females after an infection. Usually resulting in failure then suicide.

Make smart choices about where you put your dick. Take a shower. I don't care if someone is cut or not, it's going to smell like a dick without a shower.

As far as female's getting cut. There are some men that think labia's mean a girl is loose. This isn't true at all.

I don't really have issues with confronting culture I don't agree with. I don't think it's wrong to do that tactfully. Most if not all cultures on Earth are fubar and believe a lot of none-sense.

Its as if kids have no rights and are at the mercy of whatever medieval superstitious neo-religious practice their parents might endorse and force upon them, and so are left to be surgically assaulted, many as infants.....and no-one says anything much about it due to 'Cultural Sensibilities'..

Its plain and simple child abuse.

Spaventa said:

Both desensitise the victims genitals and have an irreversible, detrimental affect on sexual function.

Both are widely practised in accordance with teaching of Judaism and Islam.

Click to expand...

Not entirely correct.

While male circumcision is a "spiritual practice" performed by rabbi's, that has also been inflicted on male Gentiles - in American culture,

Female circumcision is mostly a function of Geography. It is done mostly in African countries, and among African immigrants.

The alleged connection between FGM & Islam is mostly an Israeli media practice designed to shock readers, and to make them embrace the concept that "Islam is Bad Bad Bad."