2007-01-20 NY Times - A Cutting Tradition

[Joseph]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Despite the blatant similarities, MGM is still defended on the grounds that it prevents HIV.

[Randel]

Dear Joseph,
Thanks for sharing. I find female mutalation possibly worse than male mutalation, if thats possible. At lest with men a form of some recovery is possible. Joseph, I am only in my third month with the new TLC-X. I have had some unbelievable results. I can only imagine how an intact man feels.
Keep sharing. Knowledge thru communication.
Your Friend,
Randel
" If we are made in the image of God,..? Why destroy it,..?

[Joseph]

Randel?

Please don't take me to be being aggressive, because that's not my intention at all.

Many people seem to take the statement that "female mutilation is worse than male mutilation" to be self evident.

May I ask, HOW are you making this comparison?

Have you seen a male and female circumcision?

I'd like to know on what grounds you (or anyone actually) can people make this comparison.

I keep hearing statements to the effect of "female circumcision is more brutal" and "it decreases a woman's sexuality."

Well? Have there been studies like there have been studies for men?

Many woman that have been circumcised say that they are just fine. (Of course, they are living in Africa.) I'm sure those women have fully recovered, and are living what they see as fulfilling lives.

If women could not move on to live a normal, healthy life, then people wasting their time helping them recover are wasting their time, and those women need to shoot themselves in the head.

All I'm saying is, the principle of taking somebody and forcefully mutilating his or her genitals regardless of what he or she has to say is the same. How is it "worse" in one sex than the other?

I'm glad to hear that you are on your way to recovery, and that you have achieved some geed results.

Most assuredly, I want to keep knowledge, and keep communicating.

I ask you to think about the statements you have made. Are they your own? Or are you merely repeating a doctrine that has been fed to you to make you feel better for having a mutilated penis?

Best of luck to you.

:)

Joe

[cloud7]

i think the statement can be made either way, female circumcision is a lot more varied then male circumcision, in some female circumcisions they just remove the clitoral hood while on some they remove almost everything and sew it up till it's just small hole to be surgically opened after the wedding, most could be the less extreme method but becuase some do practice more extreme methods it produces a much greater response then male circumcision.

it is sad with the HIV defense, there is always a medical reason that is questioned till it is proven false, but then there is a new "proven" medical technique that is beneficial (until that's disproven)

It's kind of the way this fight goes, intactivists essentially have to follow behind an arsonist randomly spreading fires and try to stomp them out, it's a lot easier to start a fire then put one out. even if something gets proven false it takes a LONG time to get the general public aware of it

[Joseph]

Kind of like Japan and its "scientific reasons" for whaling right?

Don't stand in the way of science!

;)