It appears that male circumcision was originally introduced into English-speaking countries as a way of suppressing masturbation. <http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&amp;task=view&amp;id=16>
<http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/shorthis.htm> <http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=31&amp;Itemid=54>

Much has been written about genital mutilation. However no one has covered something which is practised in this country.

As part of the initiation ceremony for young aboriginal males. The urethra is spilt from the glans to the scrotum, creating what is medically known as hypospadias.

Sure there is no doubt that female genital mutilation practiced in other countries is abhorrent. Yet the genital mutilation practiced in this country does not rate a mention. Perhaps that is because it happens to males!

JamesH

Thank you for bringing this latest barbarity to our attention. I do not believe that this practice has not mentioned because the victims are males. If you have been following this thread you would notice that even though the topic is about female genital mutilation - male infibulation and circumcision has received debate as well.

However, I would like to clarify what hypospadias actually is.

"Hypospadias is an abnormality of the penis. It affects about one in 150-350 boys and is usually detected at birth. There are different types of hypospadias.

* The opening of the urethra (where the urine comes from) is not at the end of the penis but is somewhere else along the penis (see the diagram below).
* The foreskin may be all at the back of the penis (“dorsal hood”) and may have none on the undersurface.
* The penis may not be straight (has a bend in it and this is called a “chordee”)
* There is not a straight stream of urine"

This condition is remedied by surgery and is essential for the wellbeing of boys afflicted with this condition.

Perhaps you meant male infibulation? It is not as common as female infibulation (the topic of this thread), however, it is practised in some cultures - I am not aware of its practice within the aboriginal community.

Perhaps, JamesH, you could enlightened us with a factual contribution by submitting an article to OLO on male genital mutilation.

MG1333

Both male and female circumcision have been used in the belief they reduce masturbation. Perhaps, some circumcised male posters to this thread could inform us if this works.

For women, removal of the clitoral hood, results in an unprotected clitoris - as previously stated the clitoris is packed full of nerve endings and unprotected by the hood, it becomes painfully sensitised before eventually the skin toughens to an insensitive lump. It is still possible to reach orgasm, but greatly reduced.

So let us all urge the Government(s) to ban genitle mutilation for males as well as females.

Legislate to stop the Jews, Christians, Muslims and our Aboriginal people from carrying out their cultural cuts.

We might then also ban the piercing of other body parts as well.

Surely it is also an assult a young girl to have her ears pierced, even if she screams 'blue murder' for her mother to get it done?

Scout, in answer to your question, no it doesn't.

Without minimising the significance of the debate on male circumcision, I don't think it can really be compared to FGM, except from the point of view of being (in the male case) often unnecessary and a result of poorly examined cultural traditions.

Male circumcision doesn't in any way impede sexual functioning (and in some cases, eg phymosis, actually improve it. There are some medical arguments for routine male circumcision - reduced susceptibilty and transmission of sexually transissible infections such as herpes, wart virus and HIV (the last two being the causes of lethal disease - AIDS and cervical and possibly penile and anal cancers); reduced risk of urinary tract infections in young boys, and almost total elimination of the incidence of thrush.

My opinion, and that of most paediatricians, is that those benefits probably aren't enough to justify routine use of the procedure. But from a medical point of view, the outcomes of circumcision for men and FGM are just not in the same ball park.

This country and many others have banned female genital cutting but male circumcision is both legal and is subsidised by Medicare. Most would agree that if a boy is born with a genital anomaly such as an undescended testicle or the like, it should be corrected. However, the foreskin is not a birth defect, but a normal part of male anatomy. Why, then, should the taxpayer subsidise its removal?