RObert with respect.
In answering you OTB wins!
But can we agree based on the male body this procedure probably made its way in to the Jewish faith, as an act of cleanliness?
And do we too agree it is debated,not proved, that it is an aid to male sexual enjoyment?
Even Suseonline said some times, because it is too tight, males past child hood get it done.
So yes the child has no say in it.
But is the end result in any way, to control males?
Is it in any way to stop men enjoying sex.
Is there any chance it is cleaner? enhances sex act for men.
How much can be said from that list is the same for FGM?
Am I having myself on? is it not true harm and deaths come from FGM is it against the law here.
Is Male Circumcision against the law here, if not why not if in any way it is equal to FGM.
Is isolating a crime from a non crime wrong, is it just showing concerns that such a dreadful act against women is wrong.
Not shouting not sweating not angry with you or any poster just that this subject in my view questions our humanity.
Those poor little girls!

If there was any benefit whatsoever from cutting males, as farmers we would have been circumcising farm animals for years. Australian farming is highly efficient.

But there is no benefit, only harm. Regettably circumcisers have been coming up with 'benefits' for countless years in attempts to justify their cruelty in infant boys and girls.

In boys the foreskin has attachments to the penis that gradually release normally as they mature. It is so often damage done through (painfully) forcing the forteskin back in childhood that causes problems later. However, as with females, any male medical problem with plumbing design is not usual at all and where it occurs, medical treatmentcan be provided if and when it occurs.

The foul practice and crime of cutting girls is has been also rationalised as being for cleanliness and the folds of the vulva are more likely to hide bacteria. It is not funny at all that while women are finally escaping their own attitudes towards normal vulvas/vaginas and are advisedly using only water to clean the area, the circumcisers mainly religious fundamentalists and bent physicians profiting from unnecessary cosmetic surgery are persisting in giving boys and young men complexes about 'dirty' penises that must be cut to be clean.

The US is one of the big cutting countries of the world as far as boys are concerned. In the US, medical providers risk abuse and legal suits for following science and their conscience in objecting to providing routine cutting of boy infants.

Here is Dr. Michelle Storms' presentation at the NOCIRC Symposium, Berkeley California 2010, an independent highly trained woman's view on cutting. Intending mothers should take the time watch it and act on their own conscience later to resist the offensive religious fundies and charlatans who claim to improve on what a mother has borne,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWpZLhz8Isc

to be continued..

contd..

My views were given in my first post, of Tuesday, 23 July 2013 11:40:37 PM and I have said repeatedly it isn't a zero sum game. I strongly believe that effectiveness, efficiency and value for money in preventing the import and growth of cruel and inhuman traditions is obtained by national coordination and a whole of government approach.

So often the main opponents to that practical simplicity and quest for measurable, effective results from spending taxpayers' money are the very people who claim to want to abolish the practices but are getting some employment, government grant or secondary gain from the inefficiency of splitting effort, and the money taken from taxpayers.

It is absolute nonsense for example that concern for other cruelty affecting children somehow detracts from government responsibility and results in preventing female cutting in Australia. All children should expect the same rights and protections of Australian law and that is not negotiable. What 'contracting' out government responsibility to a plethora of private individuals and groups can do though is to diminish ministerial and government accountability for results obtained. It also promotes the very inefficient duplication of effort and destructive, wasteful fights over territory and dog in the manger attitudes that bedevil the successful delivery of health and other social programs.

Private contractors have a role. However that is best served through a coordinated whole of government approach.

Banjo forgive me, have you ever circumcised a Bull.
How far some wander to try to divert a thread.

Belly,
Have castrated hundreds of bull calves and thousands of ram lambs, but never circumcised any. There are a few humans that need castration and penis removal as well, but that should be in the jailing thread.

Poor OTB gets things mixed up at times.

Is it ignorance or stupidity?

Banjo,

You and Belly could be bookends. LOL

In your first post you declared that you are a member of a group that presumably hopes to benefit from government grants. I know nothing of that group so I do not comment on it. However there is no surprise you would attack me personally for suggesting that government obtains the best value for money (from taxpayers' $$) where delivery is nationally coordinated under whole of government initiatives.

In your first post you demanded that "all 'at risk' girls receive regular medical examinations to detect if mutilations have taken place". That is a remarkably authoritarian and insensitive denial of the rights and privacy of the girls. It would in itself guarantee fear, withdrawal and opposition. You have no empathy at all with these women and no appreciation of the psychological effect of the dangerous regimes some come from.

As well, you want to ban immigration (and refugees?) from "those groups that practice FGM". Don't you realise the silliness and unfairness of banning the very victims themselves and others who flee such practices?

You just don't seem to be aware of even the basics of relating to a different culture, let alone how to manage change. You assume your world views are correct without considering alternative possibilities.

You have managed to further convince me that it is crucial that government adopts national coordination and a whole of government approach. Government must consider the broad implications of policies and integration and implementation strategies, short and long term.