The practice of genital mutilation is still evident in various African cultures. The clitoris is removed and with that comes the possibility of ever experiencing sex in its fullest glory. The clitoris is packed with nerve endings and one could just imagine how painful it would be for a little girl to have this cut off. Female genital mutilation is considered barbaric in inhumane by almost all countries who subscribe to the idea of human rights.
Ironically, the male version of this procedure is not nearly as controversial. Male circumcision is done to babies as young as a few days old in hospitals despite the obvious lack of consent of the people involved. Much of the reasons set forth for circumcision are religious in nature. Later on though, there seemingly was an apparent increase in medical evidence to prove that circumcision had some benefits to it. Societies that mostly had circumcised males also tend to force uncircumcised males to make choices regarding their bodily integrity under duress.
While there are studies that prove that one’s likelihood of getting HIV and penile cancer are reduced;Â circumcision is still not the biggest factor in the likelihood of getting these devastating illnesses. It still lies in the person’s sexual practices and his ability to observe safe sex and/or abstinence and self-control. Circumcision is for the most part (pardon the pun), circumstantial as a factor. Hygiene could also be a factor, but with proper education and sufficient attention to detail; that problem could also be circumvented – no need for some radical surgery that would modify a child’s body forever before he even realizes what he lost!
Almost all Filipino men are circumcised. A handful probably had their foreskins removed as infants while a few had surgery when they were approaching puberty. Most boys probably got it over with to prove a point or be at the same state as their other circumcised friends are. To a certain extent, being circumcised or “tuli” makes one more of a man than an uncircumcised chap or “supot”.
The bottom line is everyone should have the ability to be in control of their body’s. Removing a body part – even just an inconsequential fold of skin (that by the way, is packed with nerve endings that could be great for sex) – should be a decision of the person and nobody else’s. Making the choice due to social pressures, fear of ridicule and other circumstances that could put one under duress is a blow to the autonomy of a person that should have when it comes to dealing with issues of body integrity.
I need to speak up for the guys that are uncircumcised and would KILL to prevent the removal.
Underneath the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the male anatomy. The movement over it and handling when "excited" is tremendous.
All of the Filipino men have been circumcised because of religious or old fashioned beliefs and of course do not what they are missing !!! What you haven't had you don't miss….very true.
To see these boys have their manhood cut is barbaric but changing the custom will prove impossible.
….unless we push the Human rights/Civil rights department of the Philippines to stop the process until say age 16 years when the boy can make the decision to be circumcised himself.
At age 16 the boy will have experienced the pleasure that God has provided and its a surety that he will want to retain his foreskin.
Maybe we could enlist the ladies support. Question: how would they feel if they didn't have a clitoris?
The difference between circumcision and removal of the clitoris is that the former is seen as a coming of age event. The latter is a way of repressing the woman's sexual identity, a way for her family to maintain control over her.
I consider the latter to be far sicker.
But aren't both of them SICK?
Speaking as a male, being circumcised hasn't really impacted my (non-existent) sex life, and the lack of foreskin does make maintenance and cleaning a tad easier.
if having a foreskin had been detrimental to the existence of man, it would have driven us to extinction a long time ago.
there are more definitive recorded adverse effects of having circumcision than not having one. a quick google search pulls up a lot.
regarding the association with HIV and cancer, it's simply a case of correlation versus causation. i recall in the late 90's that the demographic considered for the HIV and circumcision relation were african males. of course, we're not seeing the same HIV epidemic in uncircumcised europeans or asians.
afaik, this coming of age tradition has it's religious roots. pre-hispanic filipinos aren't circumcised. regardless if it's tradition or religion, we need to do away with it if it goes against reason.
Well, it better be a correlation!
it would be far too creepy if it was causation.
The simple fact is that it's against the basic value of freedom. A lot of Filipinos have a hard time thinking about it this way – even well-educated ones.
PHAIL.
long weekend- out of town.
BAH.
I remember reading somewhere that circumcision somehow desensitizes the now exposed 'head', and those who remained uncircumcised get to enjoy more of the pleasurable sensations. Is that right?
I have read the same information somewhere, the permanent uncovered exposure of the tip with rubbing in the underwear is reducing the sensitivity. Because the uncovered skin is becoming more leather like the HIV virus has more difficulty to penetrate micro wounds thou.
I also read that the ratio of the penile cancer is 1: 100,000 so male circumcision does not make any sense for this very rare occurrence especially as the side effects of contracting some infection by removing the foreskin are 1:100. So the argument of penile cancer is more a distraction to push a religious agenda.
There were several cases where a rabbi in New York infected the little baby boys (8 days old) during the circumcision rite with herpes. Reason is that in Jewish culture the rabbi cut the foreskin with a knife, take the baby penis in his mouth to remove the foreskin.
The female genital mutilation is just a barbaric act with thousands of death and millions of life long pain during intercourse and childbirth. Of course practiced from the ”religion of peace” to ensure that the property (the daughter) of the father sold to the new husband has no sexual desire to commit adultery and stays sole property at the discourse of her new owner. What can you say against it when their deity commands it like this, or at least scholars interpreting the alleged teaching of an illiterate camel herder written down 30-40 years later in this way.
weh?! IN HIS MOUTH?!
no wonder the rabbi got the herpes in the first place.
apparently, it's traditional for the rabbi to give the baby's peepee a little suck after the snip.
the official term is "Metzitzah b'peh" ("suction by mouth"), malay mo itanong sa Quiz Night what the jewish term for a blowjob is
if you google it, there have been reported cases of blood contamination not only of herpes, but also of syphilis and TB as well
Ironically, I was at Shang this afternoon. I was semi hoping that there was a meeting!
Iniiwasan mo ata kami e
Anyway, there will be one on Saturday — same time, same place. I'll post the meetup invite soon.
This reminds me of baptism — how children are raised from infancy into a belief system not of their choosing.
Thanks for posting this, Benj! Attend ka na sa next meetup ha
Ryan, the big diff is that you can at least be de-baptized as you mature and learn to make decisions for yourself
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-07-21-…