Re: female circumcision-Arguing at cross-purposes
Sun, 27 Nov 94 18:44:33 EST

In article <> (sci.anthropology,,soc.culture.african), writes:
> slavery was
> wrong however that was caused by greedy leaders. Thats is why we are still
> having problems today. If this basic human rights were so basic why did
> the western society wait till so long to acknowledge them?

Ah, now I understand. It is western civilization which determines
morality and basic human rights. And of course, western civilization
is always right...

No, not at all... Western civilization is doing a good job in a lot
of things but it is _not_ always right and not necessarily the
leader in figuring out what is basic human rights. That is a very
ethnocentric (read that racist) point of view you have. You need
to be able to admit and recognize that even western society makes

> >> Plus you seemed to be ignoring something, this so call
> >> mutilations are not meant to be degrading or serve as punishment.
> >
> >Plus you are ignorant of the origins of circumcision. It was used
> >as a punishment for boys for masturbating in England
> >and in the USA. Then people rationalized it as a good thing to
> >do routinely to stop masturbation. Later other rationalizations
> >were given but in all cases it is a mutilation
> I think that maybe you should go and recheck your facts.
> Circumcision didn't originate in England nor the usa.

Perhaps you need to read my posting again and more
carefully. I did not say that circumcision originated in
England. I said that you were ignorant of the origins of
circumcision and that circumcision was used as punishment
in England and in the USA. You had denied that circumcision
was used as a punishment. It was used that way. England and
the USA are not the only places either.

Even Jewish scholors recognize the damage done as noted
from the words from the Jewish scholar Moses
Maimonides--1135-1204 AD that the effect of circumcision
was: ' [T]o limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the
organ of generation as far as possible, and thus to cause
man to be more moderate...for there is no doubt that
circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and
somewhat lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ
necessarily becomes weak when ..deprived of its covering
from the beginning.'

"To cause men to be more moderate" In otherwords, to lessen
the pleasure of sex so that men will not want it as much.
If you've been circumcised since before you began having
sex then you may be missing a lot...

> So why should we bother cutting [an umbilical cord] off
> since it'll fall off on it's own

Your whole comparison of the umbilical cord to the
foreskin/labia is falicious but here is the answer to your

The umbilical cord is not cut off of the baby. It is
separated from the mother and then tied off leaving a piece
up to several inches long attached to the baby. Over the
following weeks it proceeds to dry up and eventually fall
off from the belly button.

What is amazing is comparing cutting the umbilical
cord with cutting off healthy erogenous tissue (a.k.a
circumcision). The umbilical cord is a piece of tissue that
is going to fall off from the babies body because its
function is completed and it is truely no longer necessary.

That is not the case with the foreskin or labia. The
labia are folds of skin that protect the entrace to the
vagina and provide slack so that during birth the woman is
less likely to tear making birthing easier and safer.
Giving birth for a circumcised woman is much more traumatic
and riskier for both the mother and the baby as medical
personnel have pointed out here and in medical journals.
The labia are also filled with erogonous nerve endings.

The foreskin protects the head (glans) of the penis
maintaining maximum sensitivity, provides a built in
lubricant in the form of a linear bearing during
intercourse (which is more important for older women who do
not lubricate as much), protects the head of the penis from
abrasion and UV light throughout life, and is filled with
erogonous nerve endings.

The foreskin/labia are healthy tissue that have a function
for life. The umbilical cord's function is over at birth.
Your comparison of the two is incorrect.