case for female circumcision

[JohnC]

If all, or any, of the arguments for the routine circumcision of males are valid then they are even more compelling for routine female circumcision (RFM). Now I don't mean the ******** tribal practices that people call FGM, any more than medical male circ should be compared with the deadly tortures inflicted on Xhosa youth today.

No. Let's consider a rational, medical argument that the labia minora of all infant girls should be removed in the first year of life. I'm sure the geniuses who gave use the Plastibell and the Gomco clamp could come up with a similar device for infant girls that would require no more than some local anaesthetic and a few minutes in surgery.

Think of the health benefits:

Vastly reduced levels of lifetime UTIs.
Vulva cancer rates greatly reduced to near zero levels.
Protection against sexual infections, particularly HIV and ulcerative diseases.
And reduced HPV transmission would almost certainly mean less cervical cancer.
Thrush largely a thing of the past.

Plus, a vulva without the labia minora would clearly be more hygienic, requiring far less time cleaning. Not to mention neater, without all that excess "skin".

And most men would no doubt prefer it (in fact most already do, which is why cosmetic labioplasty is very much a going concern).

Of course, none of these benefits may be credible or worth the surgical risk involved. But if that is so for women, it is much, much truer for men.

[MummaBear03]

Hmm, food for thought...

Since it's illegal to do female infant circumcision, is this evidence enough to make it legal? If not, how is it enough for male infant circumcision to be legal :detective:

[Fellow Traveler]

John John John John John *shakes head* you're missing the critical difference. Male circumcision has been going on for housands of years and is part of religion. That makes it right.

[JohnC]

I don't see why we should be weighed down by tradition. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Fellow Traveler]

I don't see why we should be weighed down by tradition. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Because, that's why.

[Pippi Longstocking]

Maybe it'd be more popular if our mums were done? :p

You're quite right John. Removing infibulation from the equation because clearly it cannot be compared to male circ, FGM is otherwise entirely comparable to male circumcision. And you're right too in that the arguments used for male circumcision become more compelling when used for girls - we have many more folds, which can potentially trap lots more smegma than even the most ambitious of smeg-collecting foreskins.

And girls are far more susceptible to UTIs than boys, making that particular argument hold more water in relation to girls.

Generally, men place more emphasis on aesthetics. Surely then we want our girls to be suitably pleasing for any potential male partners*?

Most of the arguments for male circumcision, if we are to believe them, would be equally if not more compelling in arguing for FGM. I think this really clealry indicates that a large proportion of people that circumcise their male children do so because of cultural bias rather than any potential health benefit. If it was for the potential benefits, why not their daughters too? :detective:







*omg, even just typing that made me vomit a little bit into my mouth

[serendipity22]

If not, how is it enough for male infant circumcision to be legal

Secular male infant circ was commonplace before legality was an issue. It was widespread long before concepts such as informed consent and surgery without informed consent constitute assault etc.

If circ did not exist then there is no doubt any proposal to introduce infant circ would be rejected as inhumane and illegal.

Strictly speaking according to existing laws, it is NOT legal. Its assault to perform unnecessary surgery on children who are too young to consent.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

John John John John John *shakes head* you're missing the critical difference. Male circumcision has been going on for housands of years and is part of religion. That makes it right.
As has FGM in some cultures.

It seems that the reasons to RIC anyone don't hold much weight.

[Mrs Nietzsche]

I actually disagree with your logic.

Female and male anatomy aren't equivalent.

Women have two orificies - one for urination and one for childbirth/intercourse. I can't see how circumcision in a female would relate to UTIs.

I also can't see how it would relate to HIV. As I understand it, the pro-circ argument is that the (male) foreskin can tear, making an opening for HIV to enter.

HIV transmission in women is related to vaginal tearing, not tearing of the clitoral hood.

Therefore circumcision in women would not be a factor in HIV transmission.

I understand the point you are trying to make, ie why do we accept genital altering in males but not females, but you simply can't reduce female circumcision and male circumcison arguments to equivalency.

[Fellow Traveler]

I actually disagree with your logic.

....

I understand the point you are trying to make, ie why do we accept genital altering in males but not females, but you simply can't reduce female circumcision and male circumcison arguments to equivalency.

I'll have to get back to this one (unless someone else pipes in first) but in the interim, think of it this way. Do you believe that if the world was innocent of infant circumcision we would start performing it based on the reasons provided today?

I am pretty sure it would be rejected out of hand.

[HelenHasTwins]

:rolleyes:

[JohnC]

Maire,

In fact the current thinking about both UTIs and HIV in males both relate to the mere existence of the mucosal tissue of the inner foreskin. Such tissue is said to both be a breeding ground for E coli (and hence ascending UTI) and a natural portal for HIV, because of the presence of CD4 receptor cells, which otherwise would be immunologically protective.

If these arguments are correct, then the labia minora is a bigger problem in proportion to its larger surface area. And prima facie this seems to be the case given the higher levels of both problems in women.

Of course, one could argue that neither consideration is relevant in a developed world situation, but if that's the case for women, it is doubly the case for men.

[Fellow Traveler]

Maire,

In fact the current thinking about both UTIs and HIV in males both relate to the mere existence of the mucosal tissue of the inner foreskin. Such tissue is said to both be a breeding ground for E coli (and hence ascending UTI) and a

John, Re UTI. The recently release statement from the RACP (August 28th routine circumcision is not recommend) the author noted that their developing understanding of UTI and chronic renal diseases is weakening the case for routine infant circumcision. Are you aware of what that means specifically? I have some ideas but I am not entirely certain.

[JohnC]

My reading of that is a belated recognition that Urethritis and Pyelonephritis have rather different aetiologies, and therefore the occurrence of the former is not a significant risk factor for the latter.

[Fellow Traveler]

My reading of that is a belated recognition that Urethritis and Pyelonephritis have rather different aetiologies, and therefore the occurrence of the former is not a significant risk factor for the latter.

This is basically where I was leaning. I hadn't dug through the UTI literature in sometime and no one else has publicly made that statement. I guess that is because they've shifted their focus to STIs. :) I hope they are clear about it in the full release.

[Mrs Nietzsche]

Women are more prone to UTI due to the physical structure - short urethra, proximity to anus and vagina (bacteria easily enters towards bladder due to friction of intercourse etc). Men have a much longer piece of tubing between bladder and the external environment, and their entrance point is much less prone to friction and contamination.

it has nothing to do with the labia.

Fellow traveller - I understand the point. I just think it is overly simplistic and in fact inaccurate to try and equate the two sets of genitals in this way. It just doesn't bear scrutiny and is an extremely forced analogy.

[Fellow Traveler]

Fellow traveller - I understand the point. I just think it is overly simplistic and in fact inaccurate to try and equate the two sets of genitals in this way. It just doesn't bear scrutiny and is an extremely forced analogy.

I think it depends. There are a wider array of procedures that are lumped under that term. No doubt some are worse, but some are not and some times the procedure is less damaging. So I think a comparison is valid when FGM is properly bounded to certain procedures.

No matter the severity though you must agree that both are unnecessary and typically non-consensual.

[Mrs Nietzsche]

I think you don't understand my point.

I am not debating the *ethical* comparison.

I am saying that the *physical* comparison with respect to HIV transmission, UTIs, etc is simply not there.

The alleged 'reasons' for RIC with respect to HIV etc are simply not transportable to female anatomy.

[JohnC]

Maire,

In relation to adult women you are absolutely correct, and it is certainly the best explanation for the incidence data.

The situation is less clear with infant UTI, where bacterial colonisation of the mucusol surfaces has been suspected for some time, in both sexes. However, no medical body has suggested this is serious reason to circumcise boys, and hence the same would apply to girls, since the infant rates are roughly equivalent.

The point is that if someone wants to put forward UTIs as an argument for RIC, then it applies equally to girls.

It's the culturally determined double-standard that is at issue here. But I'm sure you are aware of that ;)
..

[Fellow Traveler]

The alleged 'reasons' for RIC with respect to HIV etc are simply not transportable to female anatomy.

With respect to this point I (for now) agree. That doesn't mean that I think a comparison between the two procedures can't be made, generally speaking.

[Mrs Nietzsche]

agreed

[JohnC]

In reality, I don't think that any of the arguments for male RIC amount to anything more than cultural prejudice.

But anyone who wants to argue in this forum that there is even a potential benefit to male RIC is morally bound in my view to show why the same benefit wouldn't accrue to female RIC.

The only way of testing that is through some medical trials. Now that would seem to be deeply unethical, but then so is male RIC, surely, by the same logic.

The issue here is the profound double standard, the hypocrisy, of parents who see one form of modification as a parental right and another as a human rights outrage. And before someone complains about my use of that term, let me bring in the authority of Thomas Szasz, the eminent Hungarian psychiatrist and intellectual:

Why is RIC legal? Because it is defined as preventive medicine. Why is it defined as preventive medicine? To avoid having to ban it as male genital mutilation.

You can't have it both ways. As I said upthread: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Mrs Nietzsche]

John I will say that considering most females face a lifetime of pressure to modify their bodies, I can't feel a huge amount of sympathy for this line of argument. A large majority of women spend most of their life compressed, surgically altered, being systematically objectified, dieting, squeezed into high heels, starving themselves, covered in artificial substances and etc.

RIC is wrong. To argue that it is unfair that girls aren't subject to societal pressure towards bodily modification is ludicrous.

I don't think you can make a 'good for the goose is good for the gander' argument in good conscious given the huge disparity in male and female levels of anorexia, plastic surgery, poor body image, and so on.

[bada]

The issue here is the profound double standard, the hypocrisy, of parents who see one form of modification as a parental right and another as a human rights outrage. The pro-circ'ers should at least be consistent in their views and respect a parent's decision to circumcise their daughters.

[JohnC]

RIC is wrong.

That's the point.

And the very idea that anyone would introduce RIC for females is beyond ludicrous.

But framing the question in this way may shake at least some people out of the morally bankrupt complacency of their cultural conditioning.

Sexual modification of infants, of either sex, is a breach of our duty of care as parents. And no amount of prattle about "potential benefits" and doing "research" will change that.

There will be another 40 male infants whose genitals will be surgically altered for no medically valid reason in this country today. If we can make that one less tomorrow because somebody was stimulated to think outside their cultural conditioning, something will have been achieved.

[Father]

But anyone who wants to argue in this forum that there is even a potential benefit to male RIC is morally bound in my view to show why the same benefit wouldn't accrue to female RIC.

You are good with numbers John. Maybe you can find some more.

Previously, you mentioned that 2% of uncircumcised boys will ultimately require circumcision due to problems by the time they are 15.
You also said that another 2-3% of the remaining uncircumcised 'adults' will ultimately require circumcision.

Can you tell me how many girls/women actually require a 'female circumcision'?

Maybe this might be the difference you are looking for.

[JohnC]

Can you tell me how many girls/women actually require a 'female circumcision'?
The ICD does not of course have a coding for females circumcision. However, it does have codings for total vulvectomies, vulva and clitoral excision and vulvoplasty, which in combination probably represent the equivalent of medically required circumcision, excluding cancer and cosmetic procedures, as well as vaginal procedures..

The number for 2007-8 was 5,880. I haven't done the analysis to calculate a lifetime risk, but on the face of it this looks similar, or slightly higher, than figures for male circumcision.

One must bear in mind that currently women's genitalia are treated much more conservatively. No woman is going to have an excision done because of repeated episodes of thrush, but this is quite common with men and included in my "medically necessary" estimate since that is based on current medical practice in Australia, rather than what could be.

[JohnC]

oh, I should add that also excluded from that number are "destruction procedures" on the vulva, which are in fact treatments for warts and assorted lesions.

[Fellow Traveler]

Nearly 6,000 procedures Father. Will you be circumcising your daugter now to prevent that?

[Opinionated]

Father, I am not sure there would be statistics as most procedures are done privately, only a few are required by women after severe birth trauma, however, labial plastic surgery is on the rise. Where once it was only porn stars, now more women are getting surgically altered. I have known a couple of people who have had it done.

I would guess that you will counter with "circ is not plastic surgery", but I think it is. Unless there is a medically indicated reason, it is about cosmetics.

[Opinionated]

John, does that number include all those done by private plastic surgeons?

[Father]

I'm learning more each day with this forum:)


Vulvoplasty: This is cosmetic surgery performed on the outside genital structures include removal of unwanted fat from different parts of the vulva, such as in the pubic area, around the outer lips

Are you counting these figures?

[JohnC]

The figures cover procedures performed in both private and public hospitals as well as free-standing day surgery centres. However, I do not believe they cover purely cosmetic surgery, since these dedicated outfits are almost certainly not part of the AIHW hospital database. Specifically, cosmetic procedures are usually defined as labioplasty and I can find no coding for that.

Father, though I know Google is your friend, it is really not much help in interpreting Australian health statistics, particularly when you pluck a definition from a "UK website dedicated to providing information on cosmetic gynaecology".

Vulvoplasty in Australia under the ACHI is defined as a "repair proceudure". If you look at the Medicare Benefits Schedule you will see a rebate is only paid in cases that are "medically indicated", and the rebate was paid in 1200 of the 1500 cases (rounding the figures for the past 4 years). The remainder are almost certainly public patients treated by hospital doctors (usually registrars), and hence do not attract a rebate.

In short, I'm fairly certain that about 6,000 is the right number for "medically required" female circumcisions performed annually in Australia.

[JohnC]

The point of all this is that people rationalise their decision to circumcise by claiming the foreskin is uniquely pathogenic: it's prone to "infections", vulnerable to sexual diseases, and can be a source of other unspecified problems that will lead to the need for surgical correction later in life.

But if we wipe the mist of propaganda from our eyes, we can clearly see that the external genitalia of females are at least, if not more, prone to exactly the same charges. And routine excision of the labia minora would accrue at least as many "potential benefits" as removal of the foreskin.

Ditto for the hygiene and aesthetic questions.

But as a society we have realised that routine female circumcison of children is an unnecessary and intolerable mutilation.

Is it so hard to understand that routine male circumcision is also exactly that? How deeply do we have to bury our moral sense and intellectual honesty to allow this practice to continue?
..

[Father]

It seems that the only people who are "promoting" FGM are the anti-circ activists.

The World Health Organisation states the following:


3.6 Male circumcision and female genital mutilation

While both male circumcision and female genital
mutilation4 (FGM) are steeped in culture and tradition, the health consequences of each are drastically different (189). Male circumcision may seem similar as far as definition is concerned – “partial … removal of the external genitalia” – but in practice is substantially different. FGM, also referred to as “female circumcision”, comprises surgical procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia. It is the manifestation of deep-rooted gender inequality that assigns women an inferior position in societies, and is unambiguously linked to a reduction in women’s sexual desire and an irreversible loss of capability for a type of sexual functioning that
many women value highly (190). FGM frequently involves complete removal of the clitoris, as well as additional cutting and stitching of the labia resulting in a constricted vaginal opening. The procedures are linked to extensive and in some
cases lifelong health problems (191). The immediate complications include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage, tetanus or sepsis, urine retention, ulceration of the genital region and injury to adjacent tissue. Haemorrhage and infection can be of such magnitude as to cause death (191). Moreover, the WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries on female genital mutilation and obstetric outcomes, published in June 2006 (192), showed that deliveries to women who underwent FGM (all types considered) were significantly more likely to be complicated by Caesarean section, postpartum haemorrhage,
episiotomy, extended maternal hospital stay,
resuscitation of the infant and hospital inpatient perinatal death than deliveries to women who have not had FGM. FGM is estimated to lead to an extra one to two perinatal deaths per 100 deliveries.
There are no known health benefits associated with FGM and no research evidence to suggest that such procedures could reduce the risk of HIV transmission. For these reasons, bodies such as WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Council of Nurses, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists consider FGM to be universally
unacceptable, as it is an infringement on the physical and psychosexual integrity of women and girls and is a form of violence against them (191).

The same article states this:


Male circumcision has been carried out for many thousands of years, and is likely to be the most common surgical procedure globally, with an estimated 30% of men circumcised. Promotion of male circumcision for medical benefit has always been controversial,
largely due to the lack of evidence for a strong protective effect of male circumcision against
common diseases. However, there is now conclusive evidence that male circumcision significantly reduces risk of HIV infection in men.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf

So who do you believe? Anti-circ activists, or medical authorities?

[brogeybear]

No matter the severity though you must agree that both are unnecessary and typically non-consensual.

Sorry for not reading any further. This just caught my eye. If RIC (in either boys or girls) is bad because of the lack of consent (which generally seems to be the main argument), then what about infant and early childhood vaccines? what about medical intervention and non intervention in small children? etc. etc.?
It is ALL lack of consent on the child's part as they don't have the ability or knowledge to consent - that is the parents responsibility.
Just a thought, didn't mean to derail but it caught my eye.

[Phyllis Stein]

It seems that the only people who are "promoting" FGM are the anti-circ activists.

So who do you believe? Anti-circ activists, or medical authorities?

1. They don't consider the similarities with type 1 FGM, which only removes or cuts the clitoral hood, this being the type most commonly paralleled with male circ.

2. There have been few studies performed to discover the "health benefits" of FGM, let alone a "body of evidence".

3. The FGM they're referring to primarily takes place in unsanitary conditions, with no pain relief. If it were performed in sanitary conditions within hospitals or clinics, with pain relief and post-operative care, there would be far fewer risks and complications. Thus the argument against it is largely the same as the argument against RIC - that it's a violation of a person's rights to remove parts of their body without immediate medical need.

4. They're focusing on FGM from the perspective of ensuring that the promotion of male circ in areas of HIV prevalence is not used to condone or further FGM. An argument of lesser evil if you will, and a potential bias.

5. Clitoral function is valued by women in the west, as they've been awarded the right to experience it, therefore it seems more of a 'loss' than male circing. Generations of male circing means that we don't yet have a cultural basis for valuing the function of the foreskin. Another bias.

[Fellow Traveler]

Sorry for not reading any further. This just caught my eye. If RIC (in either boys or girls) is bad because of the lack of consent (which generally seems to be the main argument), then what about infant and early childhood vaccines?


That's one of the arguments, another being that circumcision is in most cases non-therapeutic. There are a significant differences between circumcision and vaccination. Three that come to mind include:


Children are generally at immediate risk for the diseases we vaccinate against.
The efficiency of vaccinations typically exceeds 85%, often much higher. You would never see 4 out of 5 vaccinated people getting polio. Or even 5 out of 10.
Often there is no other reasonable way to protect against those diseases.




[W]hat about medical intervention and non intervention in small children? etc. etc.?
It is ALL lack of consent on the child's part as they don't have the ability or knowledge to consent - that is the parents responsibility.
Just a thought, didn't mean to derail but it caught my eye.

It depends on the medical intervention but I am not aware of too many, if any other, medical interventions we impose on children for non-therapeutic purposes. Generally there is either a therapeutic need. Non interventions is a bit vague so it's difficult to speculate on what you mean but many have a time constraint on them. You have to, for example, make a decision on what to feed a child or what school to send them. There is no rational reason that a man shouldn't be given the choice of whether circumcision is necessary or of any value for them.

[brogeybear]

Hmmm that does make sense, it isn't for an immediate medical reason (RIC).

I suppose the vaccine thing, I was mainly thinking of say Hep B for eg. If your family doesn't have it or contact with those who have it etc. why give it to a perfectly healthy new bub...if when they are older it becomes necessary for them to be protected then that makes sense...but most will routinely vax for hepB at birth and 2, 4 & 6 months. There are definite medical benefits in the forn of reduced risks for RIC, but those risks may not become a threat until they are older.

Sorry I am not wording this very well, but what I am trying to say, is, if we can with no questions asked routinely vax a baby for Hep B, to minimise possible infection later in life, regardless of environment etc. What is the difference from RIC to protect from STDs later on, or penile cancer, etc....

[GraceUnhearing]

Men prefer women without labia? WTF? "Most men," do you sit there and have discussions with other men about female labia?

I also think that by saying that "most men would no doubt prefer it" is really pigeonholing and insulting to men.



most men do prefer a 'tidy' and 'neat' vagina
hell look at all the mens magazines
where they air brush out anything 'hanging' put
and its classed as offensive

the labia are always airbrushed out to make a vagina look like a little girls vagina in these mens magazines

[bada]

most men do prefer a 'tidy' and 'neat' vagina
hell look at all the mens magazines
where they air brush out anything 'hanging' put
and its classed as offensive

the labia are always airbrushed out to make a vagina look like a little girls vagina in these mens magazines I actually saw a really interesting doco the other night about this.

The men's magazines claim they only air brush the pics to meet soft porn censorship guidelines.

The makers of the show consulted one of the censorship ppl and showed him a bunch of pictures of female genitalia, all different and pretty much all of them would not make it past censorship.

So it's quite interesting because the magazines claim they are not tailoring the pics to the desires of their audience they claim they are simply doing it to meet guidelines. The sad part is, that this will probably change what their target audience finds desirable and it's already apparent in the number of women having labioplasty surgery to look like airbrushed soft porn stars :hair:

Sorry for going OT.

[Fellow Traveler]

Hmmm that does make sense, it isn't for an immediate medical reason (RIC).

I suppose the vaccine thing, I was mainly thinking of say Hep B for eg. If your family doesn't have it or contact with those who have it etc. why give it to a perfectly healthy new bub...if when they are older it becomes necessary for them to be protected then that makes sense...but most will routinely vax for hepB at birth and 2, 4 & 6 months. There are definite medical benefits in the forn of reduced risks for RIC, but those risks may not become a threat until they are older.

Sorry I am not wording this very well, but what I am trying to say, is, if we can with no questions asked routinely vax a baby for Hep B, to minimise possible infection later in life, regardless of environment etc. What is the difference from RIC to protect from STDs later on, or penile cancer, etc....

Hep B, while also being an STD, is highly infectious and easily transmitted vertically between mother and baby. The possibility of transmission between mother and baby is anywhere from 20% and 90% depending on the mother's status. There is also risk of transmission within a house hold from blood contact, saliva, and other methods (I should add this could include casual friends too). I believe the efficiency for this vaccine is in the 90% range. So you can see why that vaccine is important to consider.

RIC may or may not provide a protection against some, but not all, STDs. The potential protection is typically low, can usually be realized with more effective approaches, and are more directly related to behavior. Penile cancer (your example) is thought to be related to HPV (a very common STD) most adults will have been infected with it at least once in their life. It is claimed that circumcision might reduce the risk by about 33% however, we have not one but two vaccines that are in excess of 95% efficient in protecting from HPV. So it would be inappropriate to promote circumcision to prevent or even reduce the risk of HPV or penile cancer, or cervical cancer.

[brogeybear]

I can see the benefit of the vaccine if there is exposure to the disease, in particular from the mother. However, what is the benefit to a family who has no contact with the disease (mine for eg.)? If we are encouraging the option to be left open for young men to decide on whether or not to circ., why not also wait until they are older to be given the choice of protecting themselves from Hep B?
Q: what is the second vaccine against HPV? I am only aware of Gardasil and won't get into that on this thread.
Also, this may only be in my circle of family/friends/aquaintances, but there have been several young men who have needed to be circ'd in their early teens to late 20's due to foreskin tightness... in my experience quite an alarmingly high amount. I imagine this would not be the most delightful procedure for a grown man to endure and that it would be far mor complicated than RIC. (feel free to correct me)

[Fellow Traveler]

I can see the benefit of the vaccine if there is exposure to the disease, in particular from the mother. However, what is the benefit to a family who has no contact with the disease (mine for eg.)?


There could be exposures from those outside the family. Close contact with anyone who is infected. If a kid shares his drink with another or if you eat at a restaurant that didn't sterilize their dishes properly. The list goes on.



If we are encouraging the option to be left open for young men to decide on whether or not to circ., why not also wait until they are older to be given the choice of protecting themselves from Hep B?


I agree it's probably unlikely to be a problem if you know for sure no one in your immediate family is infected but any close contact with outsiders puts them at risk and there are no other good ways to protect against it. That doesn't mean everyone has to get it but that is why it should be available.



Q: what is the second vaccine against HPV? I am only aware of Gardasil and won't get into that on this thread.


Cervarix.


Also, this may only be in my circle of family/friends/aquaintances, but there have been several young men who have needed to be circ'd in their early teens to late 20's due to foreskin tightness... in my experience quite an alarmingly high amount. I imagine this would not be the most delightful procedure for a grown man to endure and that it would be far mor complicated than RIC. (feel free to correct me)

It's hard to know their situations if I don't know them but in general, in countries where circumcision is or was common, doctors over prescribe it for conditions that can be more effectively treated in other ways. Whether or not it is a delightful experience is a bit besides the point since it may have been medically necessary. I had my forth molars removed for medical reasons in my teens and though you might think it would have been a retched experience, I don't recall it being bad at all. And an adult circumcision isn't that much more complicated.

[GraceUnhearing]

I actually saw a really interesting doco the other night about this.

The men's magazines claim they only air brush the pics to meet soft porn censorship guidelines.

The makers of the show consulted one of the censorship ppl and showed him a bunch of pictures of female genitalia, all different and pretty much all of them would not make it past censorship.

So it's quite interesting because the magazines claim they are not tailoring the pics to the desires of their audience they claim they are simply doing it to meet guidelines. The sad part is, that this will probably change what their target audience finds desirable and it's already apparent in the number of women having labioplasty surgery to look like airbrushed soft porn stars :hair:

Sorry for going OT.

i watched the same thing on hungry beast :)
and the women having labioplasty is jsut sad
to look more 'tidy' and 'neat' :(

[GraceUnhearing]

we have not one but two vaccines that are in excess of 95% efficient in protecting from HPV. .

that main vax is only vaxing against 3% of strains of hpv
and considering most sexual active people have come in contact with it along the line
it leaves the vax completely useless

[Fellow Traveler]

that main vax is only vaxing against 3% of strains of hpv
and considering most sexual active people have come in contact with it along the line
it leaves the vax completely useless

Not really. It is true that Gardisal covers 4 strains, 2 of which are thought to be responsible for over 90% of genital warts and the other 2 are thought to be responsible for at least 75% of cancers. So while you're right that it covers only a small number of strains, the ones it protects against are responsible for most of the disease. I should add that it has been found to be partially effective against at least 10 other strains it wasn't explicitly designed for. So I wouldn't say it was useless as a preteen it's something to consider.

[brogeybear]

Interesting chatting FellowTraveller. I think it's one of the nicest discussions i have had with anyone on a circ. thread!

[Fellow Traveler]

Interesting chatting FellowTraveller. I think it's one of the nicest discussions i have had with anyone on a circ. thread!

I try my best.