Seeing someone getting circumcised

I just wonder if there is any of you that have seen someone getting circumcise in real life. For example sisters seeing you brothers, or mothers ?

I've been to a few Bris ceremonies, saw medical circumcisions in the nursery and saw one adult done in the OR.

On my pediatric rotations. I've done many circumcisions on new borns. It was work though not fun.

I have seen many new borns. I also have a friend from Australia who had it done to her. Yes I said her.

I have seen many new borns. I also have a friend from Australia who had it done to her. Yes I said her.

Please elaborate...

Well it was actually female mutilation. When she came to visit me she told me I saw it. In her family when the girls are around 13 they are forced to have it done. As in held down and it is done. Her labia was cut and sewn along with her clotoris. She didn't know it was wrong for years.

IMO, no more or less mutilation than what we do to boys, strapped down or swaddled and mutilated without anesthesia or medical necessity. Mostly to limit sexual response.

. . . . Mostly to limit sexual response.

It's certainly NOT effective for that!

It's certainly NOT effective for that!

Yet that's part of the rationale. BTW, neither were corn flakes or Graham crackers. The electrified chastity belt? Well, for some..,

I do not know the first thing about viable fore skins. I always thought its removal was a benefit. My father was born in a farm house and was circumcised at 30 for health reasons, not thoroughly explained, except that they believed it was transmitting fungus.

There is NO F-ING comparison between female mutilation when assholes "circumcise" women/girls, and boys getting circumcised. NONE.

If want a comparison, imagine snipping the HEAD(glans) of the penis OFF, not just the foreskin.

There is NO F-ING comparison between female mutilation when assholes "circumcise" women/girls, and boys getting circumcised. NONE.

If want a comparison, imagine snipping the HEAD(glans) of the penis OFF, not just the foreskin.

Being that you don't have a penis, I respectfully suggest that you don't have a fucking clue.

Do you know the FUNCTION of the foreskin, do you know its ANATOMY? Its nerve supply?

It's not just a bit of useless flesh. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation.

Well, I happen to have a penis and I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Jds. Don't get me wrong, I usually find your comments to be extremely well-informed and accurate. But Sunny has expressed my thoughts exactly.

By the way, I am circumcised and it's really no big deal. The only difference it seems to make is appearance and hygiene. In terms of sexual response, I'm not a neurologist but I think the brain can only process so much pleasure. Once you reach the limit, that's it and you "blow your load." Having an intact foreskin does not necessarily mean a higher pleasure threshold.

So on the one hand, circumcision typically does not really affect a male's sexual response. But on the other hand, female genital mutilation can cause a woman to suffer from sexual dysfunction for the rest of her life. Of course she will still technically have a clitoris because most of the clitoris resides within the pelvic area anyway. But there is no reason to damage the clit at all except for a perverse obsession with religious beliefs.

I understand that you disagree with female genital mutilation as well as male circumcision, and perhaps they are both wrong. But the fact is, the typical male circumcision is quite harmless compared to the damage of female genital mutilation.

It's only 'harmless' because society has rationalized this systemic obsession with male genital mutilation as normal.

The foreskin is a complex organ system that natural selection deemed preferable in the human. Man, in his infinite arrogance has, as is his nature, found fit to second guess nature.

That is fine, but my point was that even if the typical male circumcision can be considered harmful, the amount of harm is nothing compared to the amount of damage caused by female genital mutilation. Although I have heard of male circumcisions that eliminate all foreskin including the frenulum, and that would be a significant amount of damage to the most sensitive area of the penis. But I think that extent of male circumcision is far beyond typical.

@Jds One is like cutting off a finger nail and one is like cutting off a finger. NO COMPARISON.

Grow up. Whether or not I have a dick is irrelevant. Boo F-ing hooo about your missing foreskin. I'm sure every mm counts.

Fingernails grow back, foreskins don't. Trivializing someone else's trauma is not appropriate.

@Jds One is like cutting off a finger nail and one is like cutting off a finger. NO COMPARISON.

Finger nails and foreskins are very huge false equivalencies ... try getting away with that in a logic class and it would be a 0 in grades.

Not only do finger nails grow back, but, and this is quite important, there is no pain when finger nails are cut.

So actually you are correct in a way. There is no comparison possible between the two. The only commonality both things have is that they involve cutting.

It's only 'harmless' because society has rationalized this systemic obsession with male genital mutilation as normal.

To be more correct it should be: '2 religions and (segments of) American society' have rationalized this systemic .... the rest of the world, and need it be said again, the majority of the world's population, has definitely not rationalized this ...

Just a reminder ...

Those who have commented that female "circumcision" and male circumcision are not comparable are correct. Males circumcision is trimming foreskin, which heals and has no (some may argue some) physical or emotional trauma. Female "circumcision" is mutilation, pure and simple. The woman who has this forced upon her carries deep physical and emotional scars for the rest of her life. One of the most basic joys life brings is forever taken from her and can never be replaced.

First off underage female genital mutilation should be clearly defined. There are various forms of female genital mutilation and it seems that people constantly use various terms while meaning different things.

Female circumcision is just what it says - the skin covering the clitoris is removed, just as the skin covering the skin of the male glans is removed.

But there are other forms of female genital mutilation. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, the clitoris or part is also removed, through ineptitude or because the organ is so small. But whatever the reason, this is not female circumcision. It is more than that and should maybe better be described as a form of genital amputation.

Female genital infibulation is also practiced and that consists in sewing outer labial lips together, partially or completely (but for a small urethral opening).

The removal of interior/minor labial lips is also practiced and is distinct from the above. And of course all of the above can be done on one individual or in any combination.

My first duty assignment out of Hospital corps school was in a newborn/NICU Nursery. Whenever a boy was going to get circumcised, it was my sad duty to strap them to the circ board (an plastic board with a baby shaped depression with straps at the wrists and ankles) Then, when the Doctor was finished, it was I who had to unstrap him, wrap him up, then I would usually hold them for a bit until they calmed down. I also had to check and change the iodaform gauze on their little penises.

Those who have commented that female "circumcision" and male circumcision are not comparable are correct. Males circumcision is trimming foreskin, which heals and has no (some may argue some) physical or emotional trauma. Female "circumcision" is mutilation, pure and simple. The woman who has this forced upon her carries deep physical and emotional scars for the rest of her life. One of the most basic joys life brings is forever taken from her and can never be replaced.

Once again, don't trivialize the trauma that others experience. There are deep emotional and physical traumas involved with ritual male genital mutilation. Most people sublimate those traumatic memories, others don't.

"Trimming" foreskin? Not usually. It's removal of the foreskin and it's sensory apparatus. Have someone cut off your little finger. No big deal, right? Your hand still works.

Sunny76: In some cases, "female circumcision" just consists in removal of the clitoris "foreskin", I mean, the protective hood, or part of it (some say that the removed part should not be larger than a grain of rice). I reckon this is how they generally do it in Indonesia. So in that case it's comparable to male circumcision.

Granted, in many cases, it involves the removal of the external clitoris (so like removal of the glans or part of it), or even worse (removal of labias, and possibly infibulation).

It's very difficult to get information as to what is exactly done in such or such country because people are ashamed to talk about this. Furthermore the amount removed my depend on the person performing the operation, so a lucky girl may end up with a woman who just snips some of the hood, while some other will have the whole clitoris removed.

Yes, Westerners call it female genital mutilation and for the more radical procedures I completely agree. However, just as there are staunch defenders of male circumcision here, there are staunch defenders of female circumcision in the societies that practice it. And that includes both males and females.

IMO, if it’s morally repugnant to do to one sex, it’s morally repugnant for both regardless of anyone’s personal justifications and minimizations, medical necessity aside.

I attended a Bris for a friend's son, but really couldn't actually see much. I think if more folks actually saw one they would be less popular. I have seen an online video before. I'm not squeamish about such things.

As I said in a previous post I've done thirty to forty circumcisions while on a pediatric rotation as a resident. We used the plastibel method. We didn't use any anesthesia either. The infants cried for about twenty seconds after the ligature was tightened. Then they went back to sleep. I don't think it was a very traumatic experience for them. The other residents and I did it as a group effort and told jokes to pass the time. Oh no my bad... I don't mean to trivialize it.

I've seen videos online as well, though I will admit that I don't usually see them totally as i get too grossed out or mad.

One of these that was beyond the pale as far as I was concerned, was made by a Muslim organization promoting circumcision of older boys (between 3 to 10 or so) in the Philippines. It wasn't so much the blood and cries of some of the boys that disgusted me, but the look on the faces of the nurses performing the procedure. Many of the nurses or attendants or doctors in training or whatever, looked young, 16 or 18 or so. There was something mean and controlling in their demeanor, as if there was something joyful in what they were doing, either as a profession of their faith (which I took to be the charitable explanation) or more probably from the pleasure they took in cutting the boys. I swear, it often looked as if they would have loved to cut off more than just a foreskin, such narrowed eyes and smiling faces. They reminded me of what Kipling wrote about the women on Afghanistan's plains ...

Agracier: Recall that the nurses (I assume, females) are likely have themselves had their clitoris hood removed... or the whole clitoris. Perhaps there is some aspect of revenge or at least equality in their expression.

If only the sexes could be kinder to each other in some parts of the world, it would be a much better place. Sadly, religious dogma, deeply ingrained cultural habits and unreasoning thought patterns that are intolerant of 'non-conformity' perpetuate these practices.