AAP Reverses Policy on Genital ‘Nicking’

posted at 3:15 pm on June 5, 2010 by Lori Ziganto

Originally posted at NewsReal:

Last month, the American Academy of Pediatrics jumped right in as a contestant in the race to see who can be the most revolting, all in the name of multiculturalism and their misguided idea of tolerance. They released a policy update on Female Genital Mutilation, in which they first changed the term to Female Genital Cutting and, further, gave credence to the idea of allowing doctors to provide a “clitoral nick” instead.

Obviously, this didn’t sit well with sane people everywhere and, as such, the AAP was forced to retract that policy update and issue a new update. While I am thankful that they retracted the original vile update and it was clearly the right thing to do, the underlying reasons for the original update itself are highly troubling and can’t be swept away as easily as the policy was.

Firstly, the new update leaves the less offensive ‘cutting’ in place of ‘mutilation’. Guess who can’t handle the truth, as always? In the delusional minds of those on the left, particularly the elitist left, everything is semantics. Truth does not matter, as long as the Newspeak is deemed less offensive and allows them to pat themselves on their smug backs for being multicultural Citizens of the World ™.

Inoffensive, redefined words are more important to them than the actual offensive, and, frankly, evil acts themselves. Of course, evil isn’t a word that is allowed to be used either, which is exactly why the sickening idea of “just a little nick” entered their semblance of minds to begin with. It didn’t just happen here in America, either. The global left all have the same (alleged) thought processes; The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians is considering ‘nicking’ as well.

RANZCOG secretary Gino Pecoraro said the policy would be discussed at next month’s Women’s Health Committee meeting.

We will need to start to think about [its introduction] but we would have to speak to community leaders from Australia,” Dr Pecoraro said.

“If a nick could meet the cultural needs of a particular woman, then it might save her from going through what can really be drastic surgery…”

The cultural needs? The need to mutilate a girl’s sexual organs? The need to commit a barbaric act? That right there is the danger that we all still face. The reason “nicking” was even discussed as an option, is due to the left’s embracing of moral relativism, in particularly meta-ethical relativism. An article at Salon, actually highlighted that and the extent of the danger that meta-ethical relativism, and the left’s own latent racist tendencies, brings.

As a nation of immigrants, we (in some ways like France, with its tensions over the burqa) continue to see tested the limits of liberties we hold dear; we continue to negotiate the tricky territory of embracing peoples while — in this case, rightly — rejecting their practices. And our doctors, evidently, are being asked to do exactly that in their own examining rooms. How can doctors address FGM in a way that makes sense to patients (why boys but not girls?) and educates without alienating, thus possibly helping protect that daughter from future harm? The above scenario with the Somali mother was a real one: It led to a comparable, and also rejected, “nicking” proposal in Seattle in 1996. So here we are again, revisiting the question at a national level, with doctors apparently still trying to figure out the most effective way to help protect the girls they encounter. What can we learn, this time around, about how to help them?

Yeah, no. There is no tricky territory to negotiate. Some things are black and white. Some things are right or wrong. Some things are good or evil. The elitist left, enshrined in their ivory towers, choose to be apologists for evil behavior so that they can tout themselves as culturally enlightened and Better Than You. They explain away all wrongs perpetrated by others by trying to rationalize irrational and insane behavior. Partly, due to their worshipping at the shrine of multiculturalism and partly due to their own bigoted beliefs.

Their constant talk of “brown people”, a phrase which they use that seems to encompass all but their own Ivory Tower dwelling selves, is another underlying factor. Not only do they truly believe that they are Smarter Than You and more enlightened than we hapless rubes, but they also truly believe that they are better than all those pesky “brown people”, particularly non-westerners. To them, of course non-ivory, non-westerners are far less advanced and can’t be expected to act in a civilized manner. Their barbarism is excused with a figurative pat on the head and a “bless their hearts.”

This attitude is not only bigoted, it is a great danger. It is the “soft bigotry of low expectations” taken to an unprecedented, and deadly level. The result of this line of thought is that not only are barbaric acts like FGM condoned, but terrorism is also not only tolerated, but excused. We see this all the time in their constant excuse-making for terrorists. Excuse me, man-made disaster causers, as the Newspeak-y left would like us to call them.

This bigotry and this meta-ethical relativism is one of the largest dangers the world faces. The world must realize that apologizing for evil, violent acts is not embracing diversity. It’s not “seeing both sides” nor being culturally aware. It is embracing insanity and condoning evil. Those who condone such barbarism and persist in delusional moral equivalency, like we are seeing now on a different scale with Israel and the flotilla, are actually complicit in it’s perpetuation.

It must end. Never Again, indeed.

—–

Follow Lori  on Twitter and read more of her NewsReal posts here.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good Grief!!!! At least you didn’t ad “Today’s palate cleanser” to this. What the heck is wrong with folks that this seems like a good idea?

the Coondawg on June 5, 2010 at 3:20 PM

The elitist left, enshrined in their ivory towers, choose to be apologists for evil [Islamic] behavior so that they can tout themselves as culturally enlightened and Better Than You.

Hotair’s very own CK MacLeod represents and resembles that remark.

Lawrence Talbot on June 5, 2010 at 3:26 PM

When we’re in their country, they expect us to abide by their laws. But, when they’re in our country they expect us to abide by their laws.

What’s wrong with that statement?

GoldenEagle4444 on June 5, 2010 at 3:27 PM

After CK MacLeod nicks his own equipment, he can opine about our “judgmentalism” about female genital mutilation. Not before.

OhioCoastie on June 5, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Let’s “nick” the genitals of the people making this stupid, idiotic decision!

Herb on June 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM

The left wants to excuse barbarism in others because their own life choices and political outlook contain so much of it.

Libs cry out in anguish when a cop-killing POS such as Abu Jamal (aka Wesley Cook) is condemned to death, but have no problem with Iranians hanging a woman because she defended herself against rapists.

Bishop on June 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Those who condone such barbarism [pretty musch uniquely Islamic these days] and persist in delusional [more likely malevolent] moral equivalency, like we are seeing now on a different scale with Israel and the flotilla, are actually complicit in it’s perpetuation.

Moral blindness and moral equivalency in the face of Evil is Depravity.

Tav on June 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM

“…There is no tricky territory to negotiate. Some things are black and white. Some things are right or wrong. Some things are good or evil.”

It seems so obvious to the rest of us. Why do the multi-culturalist, moral equivocators on the Left refuse to see it? Is it, perhaps, that if there is no right and wrong, no good and evil, then whatever they do in pursuit of self-gratification is OK? In order to absolve themselves of any moral responsibility, they will absolve of moral responsibility those who would mutilate the genitalia of little girls, hang homosexuals, stone to death the helpless, and slaughter innocents by thousands in acts of terror. All this they will absolve, in order to avoid answering to their own consciences for their own sins.

novaculus on June 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM

We should be leaving ALL children’s genitalia alone. There is no need for it in either gender, and it’s horrible and barbaric.

The AAP should be ashamed of themselves for even considering this act of barbary and Lori’s right, just saying, “Ooops, my bad” doesn’t come close to (I almost said “cutting it” but that would be an unfortunate pun) excusing them.

DrAllecon on June 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM

The clitoral status quo is unsustainable.
/President Obama

rogerb on June 5, 2010 at 3:42 PM

It seems so obvious to the rest of us. Why do the multi-culturalist, moral equivocators on the Left refuse to see it?

novaculus on June 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Remember the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?

Being both totalitarians, Stalin and Hitler had a common interest, at least until they didn’t.

It is the same with “Liberals” and Muslims.

Tav on June 5, 2010 at 3:43 PM

“Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” ~ Aristotle

scullymj on June 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Since it is illegal in some states to clip a dog’s ears and increasingly frowned upon in most places, why would it be okay to mutilate a human female?
Once again these so-called “intellectual” dipshits show their true colors

arnold ziffel on June 5, 2010 at 3:52 PM

This is not simply about nicking, cutting, or mutilation.

This is about enshrining SLAVERY.

This simple FACT needs to be asked of anyone that pretends this is some sort of cultural equivalency issue.

Freddy on June 5, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Nothing will change until the west grasps that Muslims themselves only respect strength and despise weakness. Of course that goes against our Christian upbringing and that’s why we continue to think that we can win hearts and minds among Muslims with compassion.

The opposite is the case. Their hearts and minds are with the victorious – that’s what Allah tells them. Their ethics in terms of which they order their hearts and minds – are nothing like what westerners, raised in the Christian faith, understand by the term “hearts and minds”.

Islam does not teach the same sort of compassion for the other that virtually every other religion including today’s “secular humanism” teaches. Muslims murder and torture each other without compunction and their own ummah, “brotherhood” has no condemnation to offer. That’s because they don’t value INDIVIDUAL human life the way we Christian westerners do. It’s not a concept in Islam – which means it’s not a concept in Muslims “hearts and minds”. Their hearts and minds instead understand what Allah teaches them in the Koran – namely, the Collective Will to Power.

When will our leaders understand this? And moreover understand that it is necessary in the end to be “cruel to be kind”, to treat Muslims in the way they themselves understand moral principles? Which ultimately means that they must be beaten back and vanquished and humiliated by a greater strength?

That is clearly what they understand. Every move to win their hearts and minds that strengthens them, merely emboldens them to advance their own peculiar ethics of the world, which couldn’t give a damn about “hearts and minds”, as we understand the term. They will accept the shehada from anyone they can swindle and connive to recite it while at the same time are willing to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Whatever it takes to build the army of Islamic soldiers is what their ethics is about.

But how is it being kind to people to pander to their immaturity and self-deception and base impulses towards power?

Certainly no mature human being would suggest that one should pander to the primitive intellectual, emotional and moral sensibilities of a two-year old? A 2-year old understands the will to power through aggression only. But by the same token a 2-year old also thoroughly understands limitations that he simply has no power to transgress. That’s ultimately what a 2-year old understands.

And that’s basically what we’re dealing with here – 2-year olds – from an intellectual perspective, from a moral perspective, and from a behavioral perspective, except it happens to be 2 year olds armed with weapons they could never have invented for themselves, being 2-year olds, but the fact is that now they’ve got their hands on them.

There is no way of avoiding the reality that the adults in this world are going to have to act like adults and step up and slap – in a big big way – Muslims who have made of their own societies the equivalent of “Lord of the Flies” and who now threaten to overrun every more advanced society with their mayhem.

“It’s cruel to be kind” is going to have to be the anthem of the future relations between the West and Islam. We’re going to have to come to terms with that fact. Either that – or it’s simply going to be cruel for all of us, with no kindness in sight, and possibly no one left to come and rescue us off an Island from hell that in our passivity and cowardice we allowed to be taken over by moral and intellectual pygmies.

Luka on June 5, 2010 at 3:54 PM

Since it is illegal in some states to clip a dog’s ears and increasingly frowned upon in most places, why would it be okay to mutilate a human female?
Once again these so-called “intellectual” dipshits show their true colors

arnold ziffel on June 5, 2010 at 3:52 PM

The whole process has to be stopped in toto both here and elsewhere.

DrAllecon on June 5, 2010 at 4:01 PM

DrAllecon on June 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM

I disagree. Circumcision is totally different and leaves no permanent damage. But, at least families have the choice of saying no to both, for now.

txhsmom on June 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I disagree. Circumcision is totally different and leaves no permanent damage. But, at least families have the choice of saying no to both, for now.

txhsmom on June 5, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I won’t try to elevate the circumcision to the level of horror of clitoral mutilation. To be comperable, the glans penis would have to be mutilated.

But how can you say that cutting off the foreskin leaves no permenant damage? It’s gone. Permenantly. The glans penis’ sensitiviy is compromosed forever.

FGM has no medical benefit and is only used to foster the abovementioned reasons of gender slavery, humiliation, control, etc.

But if it is so difficult to convince “westerners” like ourselves who consider ourselves to be more enlightened (and I admit, I do feel we’re more enlightened) that cutting a piece of a 3 day old male’s penis off is not something that we should do, how are we going to be able as a society to convince other cultures to stop mutilating their female children?

We can agree to disagree, but really, what good arguments are there for doing any kind of cutting to our children’s genitalia male or female?

DrAllecon on June 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM

I’m not sure if my replies are in moderation, so I apologize in advance if they wind up double-posting once cleared.

DrAllecon on June 5, 2010 at 4:15 PM

So in the eyes of New Zealand, it’s ok to sew up the private parts of little girls and to mutilate them in the name of ‘cultural understanding’; but these same governmental authorities have banned kosher slaughter because it might be slightly more painful to cattle and livestock (which is a lie)(if these girls were cows, I’m sure the NZ Dept’ of Agriculture would not have taken into account such ‘cultural sensibilities’ to ban them-or maybe if only Jews deemed such barbarities to be part of their tradition the NZ authorities would have had no hesitation to ban them). Obviously the only people not entitled to respect for their ancient cultural traditions are the Jewish people.

eaglewingz08 on June 5, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Must read “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She cover genital mutilation in gory detail. Not an easy, or comfortable read, but a must read.

c.u.shoeless on June 5, 2010 at 5:02 PM

How in the name of women’s rights does anybody justify the humanity of this vulgarity?

We know the liberal femi-nazis don’t care, but sane people must stand for what is right, regardless.

tarpon on June 5, 2010 at 5:11 PM

This is like 2 weeks old.

moochy on June 5, 2010 at 5:36 PM

The clitoral status quo is unsustainable.
/President Obama

rogerb on June 5, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Leinenkugel’s Summer Shandy all over keyboard. LMAO

wi farmgirl on June 5, 2010 at 5:54 PM

Okay, FGM isn’t “nicking” the clitoris, it’s CUTTING IT OFF. For the EXPLICIT purpose of denying sexual pleasure, permanently.

I wonder if the AAP was just pretending to not understand this, because it renders compromise impossible.

We don’t compromise with cannibals, either.

Merovign on June 5, 2010 at 6:44 PM

FGM is not even required by the Koran, it merely increases the value of the property, for when it comes time to sell.

Slowburn on June 5, 2010 at 7:32 PM

See

I maintain that these people are subhumans

Ernesto?

Defend this

Sonosam on June 5, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Forgive me if I’m being coarse, but I believe the beauty and power of womanhood is in our mystery. Men are drawn to that mystery…how to love us, how to draw us out.

It makes me want to cry that what God created for beauty between a husband and wife is degraded in such a manner. Real men do not fear the mystery of womanhood. They embrace it. They cover us with love and yes, protection. They cherish and honor their women.

Whole cultures are missing this very basic joy of humanity through this brutal, debasing act. It’s so sad.

Grace_is_sufficient on June 5, 2010 at 8:29 PM

On another thread there is a story about an outstanding drum performance. In the back and forth comment section was a you-tube link to an Asian boy 5 or 6yrs old that was playing the heck out of a drum set at a Christmas event. Everyone was laughing, cheering, and having a good time. The kid was quite good. As I watched it I thought about how effin miserable life must be in most muslim countries where you have the “purity police” out to watch whatever you do or don’t do. What sick mind would think to subjugate not just women but their citizens in general. Went to Costco today and saw a muslim couple. The man was wearing shorts and a t-shirt while his wife was all bundled up in her long clothes and head scarf—and no they were not Indians.. It was 95degrees here. Talk about control freaks—I remember reading parts of Khomeni’s book in 1979 about proper defecation ritual.

arnold ziffel on June 5, 2010 at 8:54 PM

I can’t help thinking that it’s a little sad that this thread was posted on a Saturday evening when many–myself included up until just a little while ago–are engaged in pleasurable (not to say sexual)summer evening pursuits.

I think, had it been a week night, this might be a 300+ comment thread by now. It’s a topic that, to my mind, has gotten zippo MSM air time, and it is also one that needs to have a much, much higher profile. I’ll wager if you ask 9 out of 10 women between the ages of 18 and 35 if they know that this is a routine procedure among Muslim families, they would, indeed, not know this. In fact, remove the age parameters I listed above, as well as limiting it to females. I bet 9 out of 10 Americans, period, don’t know this, and it is a barbaric practice, and one that I have long railed against.

The left who pays such touching lip service to womens’ rights, is completely totally silent on this and the many other issues involving oppression of women in eastern cultures. Though it is simply one more example of their unbelievable hypocracy, it is especially blatent.

I have seen few women, beyond those on the right like Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and a few others discuss this disgusting practice.

No folks, this ain’t no way no how anyway akin to circumcision…it JUST ISN’T. As someone above stated, the sole purpose of FGM is to ensure that there is limited pleasure to sexual activity. Circumcision as a rite (a rite…not a right), or ritual has a hygenic basis…this is nothing of the sort.

FGM by any other name is still female genital mutilation…not nicking, not clipping…no: mutilation. To call it anything else is to euphemize it.

Chewy the Lab on June 5, 2010 at 9:06 PM

But how can you say that cutting off the foreskin leaves no permenant damage? It’s gone. Permenantly. The glans penis’ sensitiviy is compromosed forever.

IDK, I’ve heard pros and cons…I’m not in the medical profession, but since circumcision is largely performed by MEN on male babies, I have a tough time buying that it decreases sensitivity in any significant manner. In fact, I’ve heard just the opposite argued.

FGM has no medical benefit and is only used to foster the abovementioned reasons of gender slavery, humiliation, control, etc.

Bingo. Exactly. This is substantively WHY you can’t equate circumcision to this barbaric practice. We definately agree on something.

But if it is so difficult to convince “westerners” like ourselves who consider ourselves to be more enlightened (and I admit, I do feel we’re more enlightened) that cutting a piece of a 3 day old male’s penis off is not something that we should do, how are we going to be able as a society to convince other cultures to stop mutilating their female children?

Sorry, but I think your logic is convoluted here. There has NEVER been a big anti-circumcision push in Western cultures…but let’s remember where the practice started, shall we? Christians basically adopted it from the Jews because it made sense from a hygenic sense (and, as I said above, I’ve also heard it argued that it enhances sexual pleasure though I have no idea if this is true.) So, your statement about, “not being able to convince…” is a hollow one. No one asked me if I wanted either of my sons circumcised or not…nor was I presented with a choice. Perhaps had I been, with sufficient information I would have chosen not to have them circumcised. But certainly no one tried to talk me out of it. In fact, my husband, (who is, um similarly equipped)never raised a peep or questioned the procedure. Sorry, but Chewy’s hubby is a pretty smart cookie, and I think if he felt he was getting short changed in the pleasure department, he’d-a raised a stink on his sons’ behalf.
Also, it’s not about convincing another society against this disgusting practice on female children…It’s about discouraging…in fact actively working toward the MEDICAL COMMUNITY condemning the practice, not endorsing it as these yahoos in NZ have done. That’s the first step. As you have stated, there is zero, zip, nada medical reason for this procedure.

Chewy the Lab on June 5, 2010 at 9:30 PM

No folks, this ain’t no way no how anyway akin to circumcision…it JUST ISN’T.

It is more horrible than circumcision. But let’s not pretend that cutting off a piece of a boy’s penis is just fine and harmless while we rail (rightfully so) about how horrible mutilating female genitalia is.

FGM by any other name is still female genital mutilation…not nicking, not clipping…no: mutilation. To call it anything else is to euphemize it.

Chewy the Lab on June 5, 2010 at 9:06 PM

On that I agree 100% and the AAP IMHO will never wash off the bloodstains of their initial “compromise” of calling female genital mutilation “nicking.”

Their mea culpa isn’t enough, they’re an agency that should above all agencies be protecting children around the world, but particularly in America, and they failed miserably.

DrAllecon on June 5, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Try to have a rational, reasonable discussion about circumcision with your average “big city” liberal pediatrition…or any other lib for that matter…. and then think about this policy…..

quiz1 on June 5, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Reminds me of the title of a painting by Frida Kahlo “A Few Small Nicks“. (Content Warning: Graphic art.)

profitsbeard on June 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM

FGM is not even required by the Koran, it merely increases the value of the property, for when it comes time to sell.

Slowburn on June 5, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Mohammad approved of it, when asked by a local woman who performed this barbaric act, which is almost a good as Koranic promotion.

profitsbeard on June 5, 2010 at 11:23 PM

There is one word, and ONLY one word which equates so-called “female genital mutilation” to any proceedure performed on males, or ‘done to’ males, and that word ain’t “circumcise”.

The word is AMPUTATION. If some of these ‘enlightened’ islamist-pandering medical men were strapped down and their entire corresponding ‘member’ was forcefully whacked off with a rusty knife, they might finally grasp the savagery of their thinking.

And how many men out there would be willing to submit their 5-year old sons to having “just a little nick” cut into their glans? What reason would a man give his son for forcing him to suffer that excruciating pain?

This liberal-dhimmi pandering to islamists’ inhuman ‘cultural traditions’, and everyone’s verbal beating-around-the-bush (pun not intended) has become more than tiresome, and just wears me slick.

GGMac on June 5, 2010 at 11:44 PM

“Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” ~ Aristotle

I like G. K. Chesterton’s appraisal of tolerance as well. I paraphrase:

“Tolerance, the virtue of a man without convictions.”

Goldenavatar on June 6, 2010 at 12:42 AM

In America

We hang people who cut off womans organs

a twist on the Brits dealing with woman burning in old India

I wish it were true

Sonosam on June 6, 2010 at 1:12 AM

I like Churchills

a man without enemies

is a man without character

I am an enemy to these types of, ahem, customs

How bout you Ernie?

Sonosam on June 6, 2010 at 1:15 AM

The American Academy of Pediatrics are f**king idiots to even consider such a procedure for young Muslim girls. “Nicking” as they fluffly attempted to call it, in reality is “FGM,” or better known “Female Genital Mutilation.”

One word for it: HORRIFIC!

byteshredder on June 6, 2010 at 1:40 AM

And yet the cutting of little boys fazes no one here.

Because we’re used to it?

Squiggy on June 6, 2010 at 8:40 AM

“we are seeing now on a different scale with Israel and the flotilla, are actually complicit in it’s perpetuation.”

You need to remember, the battle is not against Israel. The battle and the war are, at the root, a war with the GOD of Israel.

Some things are black and white. Some things are right or wrong. Some things are good or evil.

Gee. Right or wrong. That’s such a…”Biblical” concept.

oldleprechaun on June 6, 2010 at 9:27 AM

“Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” ~ Aristotle

I like G. K. Chesterton’s appraisal of tolerance as well. I paraphrase:

“Tolerance, the virtue of a man without convictions.”

Goldenavatar on June 6, 2010 at 12:42 AM

I like what D. James Kennedy said: “Tolerance is the last virtue of a sinful society”.

theaddora on June 6, 2010 at 10:35 AM

The face of progressives and liberals….. disgusting, absolutely disgusting. If anything needs wiping out, it is liberalism.

ultracon on June 6, 2010 at 11:54 AM

And yet the cutting of little boys fazes no one here.

Because we’re used to it?

Squiggy on June 6, 2010 at 8:40 AM

That’s the point I was trying to make. We all accept circumcision (which DOES reduce sensitivity, that’s the whole reason it was developed originally.) because it’s so common, it’s traditional, it’s a “rite” of passage, etc.

Just looking objectivly at both types of genital mutilation, people trying to make a good case in favor of circumcision sound an awful lot like the people trying to make a good case for FGM. The level of mutilation is not the same at all, but still should be stopped nevertheless.

People should pretend that they never heard of circumcisions or FGM, then have someone explain to them what it is, how it’s done and the “benefits” of them both.

Then tell me it’s ok to cut off any part of any child’s genetalia.

DrAllecon on June 6, 2010 at 12:24 PM

But they just want to make Genital Mutiliation safe, legal and rare. You know metal hangers, back alleys and other scary imagery, blah blah blah.

warden on June 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM

There are some minor medical reasons to chose male circumcision, while FGM is nothing but a method to control women. You can rant and rave all you want, but that is the way it is. And I’m happy that I have the ability to choose that for my sons.

Circumcision may prevent sex-related penis injuries

(Reuters Health) – A new study finds that circumcised men appear less likely to sustain cuts, abrasions and other minor injuries to the penis during sex — which may help explain why circumcision lowers the risk of HIV transmission from heterosexual sex.

Tomblvd on June 6, 2010 at 2:29 PM

And yet the cutting of little boys fazes no one here.

Because we’re used to it?

Squiggy on June 6, 2010

How about it’s akin to mistaking one’s appendix for your head.

chimney sweep on June 6, 2010 at 2:36 PM

First of all, the two procedures are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in their goals. I was given every choice in whether or not to have my three boys circumsized and I wholeheartedly agreed to it.

Male circumsion is for hygenic reasons. For those of you never having to clean a baby boy’s uncircumsized penis, you would not know how much easier it is when there is no foreskin to pull back. I can’t even imagine how dirty that would get and how difficult it would be to teach a boy to make sure that area was cleaned daily. It also cuts down on sexually transmitted diseases and cancer. It makes the penis slightly less sensitive. As a woman, I am very glad that my husband’s penis is less sensitive, I can’t imagine what it would be like to have it MORE sensitive. If anything, it prolongs sexual pleasure rather than detracts from it.

The islamist practice is not circumcision. It is mutilation with the goal being to REMOVE the CHANCE of sexual pleasure in the woman in order to control her and subjugate her.

The policy should be that any girl found to have been mutilated for “cultural” (islamist) reasons should be reported to the authorities so that her father could be prosecuted for child abuse. That is the only option.

Only sick SOBs would EVER connote the two procedures or give ANY credence to the genital mutilation of young, innocent, helpless, subjugated, abused girls.

Disgusting.

Haunches on June 7, 2010 at 11:05 AM

The two procedures have nothing to do with each other. Male circumcision is a valid hygenic procedure. The female mutililation of girls is to subjugate, control, and desensitize them. It’s sick and the parents should be prosecuted for abuse.

Haunches on June 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Let us not forget that the AAP was also encouraging pediatricians to question children and parents about whether there were firearms in the house as well. They also wrote an amicus brief to the Supreme court supporting the DC firearms ban.
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/washing/News-Release_Press-Statements/01-11-08-handgun-Ban.pdf

Rorschach on June 7, 2010 at 4:38 PM

More on the AAP and guns/privacy
http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/search?q=American+Academy+of+pediatrics

Rorschach on June 7, 2010 at 5:01 PM

Haunches, et al, when male circumcision was first practiced, the germ theory of medicine did not exist and would not exist for thousands of years. It was and continued to be about reducing the male’s sensation in an attempt to curb his sex drive. The hygenic aspect was simply a side benefit. A complete “circumcision” of a male equivalent to FGM however would make him sexually impotent for all practical purposes so practitioners had to settle for half measures. Women however could still function sexually even if they experienced pain during coitus so FGM did not preclude reproduction.

Both procedures were originally intended to stunt the sexual sensation of it’s victims, females however got the short end of the stick.

Rorschach on June 7, 2010 at 5:17 PM