Damn, Steel, give us a rest.

I don't know if you were lopped and now carry a grudge against the world; or whether you are one of the 'male-ists' that go thermal every time you see something that seems to discriminate against men.

I don't know and I don't care.

The point is that there is no correlation between male cirumcision and FGM. Which is one of the reasons why it is no longer called female circumcision.

Male circumcision removes a vestigal flap of skin that results in no functional impairment. It is done for a variety of reasons in a variety of cultures as either a mark of manhood, as a means of cultural superiority or as a hygene measure. As a baldy, I can attest that there is no lasting damage involved. Hell, some of the ladies prefer it! ;)

FGM removes essential areas of a woman's anatomy FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE of causing physical impairment. The operation is, for the most part, carried out in unsantiary conditions by non-medically trained persons. More often than not, victims suffer continuing crippling pain with every sexual contact and a large number of continuing medical issues. The act is carried out for the purpose of subjugating women. By eliminating a victim's ability to enjoy sex, it is supposed to encourage viginity and fidelity. Regardless of the fact that it is perpetrated by women on women, it is done to satisfy the supposed superiority of men.

Stop trying to derail the debate and get with the program. The fact that other members of my sex are encouraging these barbaric acts anywhere makes me angry. The fact that it is carried out in Australia is disturbing beyond belief.

Sylvia Else: I can see where health professionals would get caught in the middle of these issues, but I still think that they have an obligation to report it. And BOTH parents should be held accountable. I'm a believer in multiculturalism, but FGM is a crime and no agonizing about cultural sensitivity could ever excuse it.

Here here mylakhrion,

What you say is common sense and based on personal experience. However you would be surprised how effective and determined homosexual groups opposing circumcision are. For example.

They even convince mothers that their son's penis will have little or no sexual pleasure if he gets circumcised and try to give the same fear to uncircumcised males. The anti-circumcision groups will use any excuse to delay circumcision so that it becomes a feared unknown as much as possible. (Unfortunately it also robs it of most potential medical benefit by delaying it.) An uncircumcised male considering the procedure will change his mind if he is scared that he will get no sexual pleasure. If he had circumcised younger he would no better.

"Hell, some of the ladies prefer it! ;)"

I recall a friend telling me about a lady in a hairdressing salon who stated that she doesn't like them "with a windsock".

If you were to read "How to be the Perfect Lover" you could note the observations of the sexologist doctor that infant circumcision seems to guarantee maximum growth of the glans. Some women might like that.

"More often than not, victims suffer continuing crippling pain with every sexual contact and a large number of continuing medical issues."

In some cases it is actually done so that first intercourse is difficult and it will be obvious if the lady is a virgin. Naturally such interference wrecks the women for life.

"Stop trying to derail the debate and get with the program. The fact that other members of my sex are encouraging these barbaric acts anywhere makes me angry. The fact that it is carried out in Australia is disturbing beyond belief."

Well put.

"I don't know and I don't care."
Then why raise it? I could easily reverse your statement, substituting the male, for female but it isn't necessary. Either you're admitting there is psychological and physical harm from MGM, or you're admitting there IS discrimination. Either way, you reveal the duplicity and sexism perfectly. I could stop here, but I will continue because you are ignorant, sexist and have a discriminatory viewpoint.

"The point is that there is no correlation between male cirumcision and FGM."
Of course there is. They both disfigure/mutilate the sexual anatomy. In many (or most) cases, female circumcision has less of a footprint than male circumcision. Like i said above, the very worst cases are used emotively as an argument in our society: Take the worst practices of a specific third world country and transplant it into a debate into a first world country where it has no place. Evidence suggesting it isn't as bad as it's made out to be is ignored (I WONDER WHY.../sarcasm).

"Male circumcision removes a vestigal flap of skin that results in no functional impairment." So what? It's still mutilation. With that argument, I can scar a baby's face or body with a knife when it is born (no functional impairment). Besides that fallacy, it is disputed. I've also provided information above about FGM that you are clearly ignoring. Until you can demonstrate that you understand and have read these references, there is little point in further discussion.

"It is done for a variety of reasons in a variety of cultures as either a mark of manhood, as a means of cultural superiority or as a hygene measure." So is female circumcision....ffs, can you submit an argument that can't be reversed? Because so far you have demonstrated yourself to be nothing less than an hypocrite.

"As a baldy, I can attest that there is no lasting damage involved. Hell, some of the ladies prefer it! ;)" How would you know what it's like to not be mutilated? Did you have a medical condition, or was it from birth, or voluntary? This is another reversal anyway. some of the men prefer FGM! ;) ......."OH NOES! HOW INHUMANE! THE HORROR! THOSE MEN MUST BE BARBARIC!" The squeals and howls of hypocrisy can be heard for miles

"The operation is, for the most part, carried out in unsantiary conditions by non-medically trained persons."
Again reversal destroys your argument. So is MGM in the third world countries you're referring to...i'll pretend we are living in those countries for the sake of this argument here in Australia (you guys insist on this bait and switch).

"More often than not, victims suffer continuing crippling pain with every sexual contact and a large number of continuing medical issues."
Same with MGM. Again reversal essentially destroys your argument. Some male babies have lost their penis and/or died from the practice. As shown in the links above, the WORST form of FGM, yields women who not only enjoy orgasm, but advocate the practice (just as you have men and women here advocating MGM and doing it to their baby sons who get no say in the matter and are scarred for life permanently).

"The act is carried out for..........."
Now you are making stuff up. Read the supplied links above plz -_- I don't know how you think you can speak for all these people and their intents. Unlike you (apparently), I read before I have an opinion.

"Writing in the Journal Pediatrics (August 2004), Israeli physicians cautioned against a traditional form of circumcision in which the blood is cleaned from the wound not by a suction device but by the circumciser's taking wine into his mouth and then sucking blood from the wound. Researchers, led by Dr. Benjamin Gesundheit of Ben-Gurion University, found eight (8) cases of infants having developed herpes from circumcisers' mouths.

- Copyright 2004 Chuck Shepherd
Distributed by Universial Press Syndicate
4520 Main St., Kansas City, MO 64111; 816-932-6600"

FGM and Mgm should be banned and not done to children.both remove pleasure.here are good links.
http://www.cirp.org/pages/female/
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/3/prweb512999.htm
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf