Abuse or Adornment?

[Euryleia]

sorry to hear about your fathers passing,, mine who passed the other yr was also not circumsized ,,i know becuz i am a former nurse, i took care of him in the hospital and at home,, he luckiley never had any complications from his foreskin being intact,, as for cleanlyness issues,, its greatly and hotly debated in the medical comunity, just like infant ear piercing apparently lol, who is to judge such things other than the parents and the society they live in, i mean really, what about things like female circumsision?? wtf right? but the Masai in kenya used to practice it regularly despite many girls dieing from the process, its not my cup of tea thats for sure, it feels wrong to me, but i am not going to say they are full of crap or anything for doing it, infant ear piercing , if it was so terible, would have a law or too concerning its preformance by now ,,,wouldnt it?

Sorry, I've got to jump in here at the comparison. There is a major difference between a debate about removing a bit of foreskin and what happens in genital mutilation. The young girl isn't 'circumcised,' she has her entire clitoris excised and, sometimes, even the labia minor is removed as well. Additionally, some of the surgeries include sewing shut the vagina, leaving only a narrow opening for menstrual blood to flow out. The procedure is usually not done in a sterile setting within a hospital but is performed in back alleys and back rooms leaving the young woman to suffer infection and, occasionally, death.

Further, it is not performed for hygienic reasons or for women to show that they are part of a covenant with God but to control women's ability to feel pleasure. It is justified by a cultural tradition that holds that women who are not mutilated like this are likely to lose their virginity outside of marriage and be promiscuous and, even worse, masturbate.

As far as laws against it, most African nations now do have them (Uganda being the big exception). Unfortunately, the illegality has pushed the procedure underground. The one bright spot is that education to end early and forced marriages is also resulting in a lowering of female genital mutilation rates.

Sorry if my response comes across as preachy but I am appalled when the two are held as the same thing. Instead of circumcision, it is more accurate to call it castration.

~getting off my soapbox now~

[MMI]

Hear, Hear, Euryleia! I couldn't agree more. Female circumcision is a primitive tradition and has no value other than to prove a girl's virginity (I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong). I like the comparison with castration, and I'll accept it as accurate.

I wonder if there is a female equivalent to male circumcision.

Nevertheless, no circumcision (male or female) is performed to make the subject prettier, like ear-piercing is. Sometimes it's done for health reasons. Sometimes for relegious reasons. Sometimes because of "binding" custom, but never as decoration.

In my opinion, body decoration must be restricted to people who are capable of wanting it, appreciating it, and able to make informed choices about it.

[Euryleia]

There is a procedure that removes the clitoral hood that is most equivalent to circumcision. However, this too has the danger of nerve damage instead of the increased stimulation that some women who have it done seek.

[stripedangel]

There is a procedure that removes the clitoral hood that is most equivalent to circumcision. However, this too has the danger of nerve damage instead of the increased stimulation that some women who have it done seek.

This procedure is included in the "new mommy" package at some plastic surgeons...they lift the berasts, tuck the tummy, and circumcize the labia, and will include the clitoral hood as well....They also say that piercing the clit itself can cause nerve damage, resulting in less sensation.

i was thinking likewise about the African mutilization issue-they take the girls out and hold their legs and cut it off...not just the hood, either. the whole clitoris. They use whatever they can find, to include broken glass. There is no cleansing of the area. It's quite brutal and traumatic for the girls, who are usually around the age of 13. Without all of the rest of it (no pleasure, no masturbation, etc), this is an awful crime, all by itself...but add the rest, and what kind of life does that girl have? sickening.......

[Thorne]

I came across this article (http://www.timesleader.com/news/Pier...All=Y#comments) today and it reminded me of this thread.

It's interesting to note some of the more bizarre suggestions by obvious animal lovers who would just love to have a few minutes alone with the woman involved. It's a sad state of affairs when people are more concerned about the supposed well-being of some kittens than they are about the well-being of another human being. It would be interesting to know how many of these animal lovers have also had their own child's ear pierced.

And for the record, I do not condone the idea of piercing an animal's ears for decorative purposes. But I don't see it as any different than having a kitten declawed, or a pet spayed or neutered. These things are done more for our benefit than for the animal's. But I don't think the woman deserves to be treated worse than the animals!

[alwaysfallingforward]

I am a licensed piercer, and mall piercing kiosks especially for young children are absolutely deplorable. The people who do it are rarely licensed (or certified) most training takes less than two weeks.
The actual conditions are terrible and few wear gloves. It's impossible to sterilize a piercing gun even in an autoclave. Plus they only rub it down with alcohol. No one is trained in dealing with blood borne pathogens or even infection control. It also causes trauma to the tissue in the ear.
I don't even want to get started on the cartilage piercings in the mall (which with a gun it can literally shatter all the cartilage).
I personally don't believe infants should have their ears pierced either (especially at a mall) because not only are they unable to communicate if something feels wrong or otherwise.
I know in some places it is a cultural thing, where they do it as soon as the child is born.

[Arria]

In my opinion, things like that should be left to the child - although all little girls I saw with earrings were very proud of them, and liked wearing them a lot.
But to have a baby pierced is ridiculous in my eyes, it´s just unwanted and unnecessary pain for it!

I myself got my earlobes pierced at age 4. It was funny, because my Mom had just taken me along because she and my older sister (9 years old then) wanted to get theirs pierced - I was just brought along.
As it was, I decided I wanted mine pierced as well, and I went first, because my sister and my Mom were scared *lmao*. I never regretted it, I did not find it overly painful either.

As for tattoos - I wanted one since I was 16. But I knew my Mom would never allow it, and I did not expect her to pay for it, in the first place!

I got my first tattoo when I was 18 (which is the legal age for it here) and was not living with my parents anymore, and I paid for that one and all following ones myself, which is what I would expect from my son as well. He is 12 y.o. now, and while he likes the idea, he does not like the idea of pain, so I doubt he will go for it *laughs*.

However, what I told him was that if he should ever get one, he should make sure he seeks out a professional to get it done, and he should wait 1 year at least if he likes a motive, just to make sure the motive idea is not just a passing fancy (which I had many of!).

I don´t think it good that so many underage people get tattoos nowadays. The personality and priorities change rapidly during early adulthood, and they might end up hating their pieces at a later time.

Of course one can remove it, but that leaves scars, and the idea of removal is not what should be on your mind if you get a tattoo.
The artist works very hard to give you something beautiful you can wear with pride for the rest of your life. People who don´t understand that should stick with Henna paintings, in my opinion.

[E.C. Holland]

The alleged medical advantages of circumcising male children are dubious at best, and most doctors these days say it has no health benefit. So why do we keep doing it?

Female genital mutilation is more extreme in the damage caused, but taking a razor to a baby's genitals for cosmetic purposes is barbaric, even if it is a religious tradition, if there are maybe sorta some health benefits maybe, if you want the son to look like his dad, etc.

Call it what you want, justify it how you want. It's still hacking off a piece of a baby. It differs from the FGM only in degree (and of course geography).

[Thorne]

The alleged medical advantages of circumcising male children are dubious at best, and most doctors these days say it has no health benefit. So why do we keep doing it?

I agree, medical opinion on this has changed over the last 20 years. When my boys were born, though, which was more than 20 years ago, the pediatrician recommended it strongly. Since I was circumcised by my parents I felt it was probably a good idea. I haven't heard any complaints from them, or from their girlfriends!

[mkemse]

This is a very hard question to answer, as in some nations it is customery to pierce the ears of small children even infants, i see many Hispanic Familes with infants who's ears are pierced, then I ask myaself, is it their custom, or why did they do it
If it is there custom, evertyone nation and poplution has ones different then say Americans
I am not intentialy picking out Hispanics, i just livei n an area where they are a good portion of the population and see them and it daily, on the other hand other asreas ofthe country i never see it at all