Imagine if a male lawmaker joked about reducing girls’ sexual pleasure by removing their clitoral foreskins in order to combat teen pregnancy and “female irresponsibility.” The media would be covering it and that lawmaker would have to publicly apologize. Well that is exactly what Colorado lawmaker Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge (sue.schafer.house@state.co.us)Â publicly said about boys in a hearing on whether to reestablish MediCaid funding for male circumcision. The bill failed. But the laughter about reducing male sexual pleasure through male genital mutilation is sexist and unacceptable.
“One lawmaker, Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, elicited laughter in the hearing room when she asked Dr. Johnson if circumcision might help reduce teen pregnancy rates and teen sexual activity by reducing nerve sensation in boys’ penises.
“I’m wondering if there’s a risk of more sexual activity, more male irresponsibility” for uncircumcised boys, Schafer asked. Johnson answered that teen pregnancy is certainly a problem, but said circumcision won’t halt teen sexual activity. “Circumcision is not a cure for behavior. That’s about education,” she said. She and others also testified that cutting off infant babies’ body parts is not the way to prevent urinary tract infections. She said she’s treated plenty of babies for infections and antibiotics are an easy answer.
“You don’t cut off part of a healthy penis to treat urinary tract infections,” Johnson said.
www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2012/05/05/circumcision-bill-dies-in-colorado-house/
The Swedish Paediatric Society has rightfully called infant male circumcision an assault on boys. http://m.thelocal.se/39200/20120219/
The male foreskin is a highly innervated erogenous organ that is dense with specialized mucosa and over 20,000 high sensory nerve endings. It also acts as a natural buffer and lubricant during sex. Researching using fine-touch medical instruments shows it is the most sensitive part of the penis. www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html
A recent study in Denmark found circumcised men have a much higher rate of sexual problems. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.short?rss=1 Research also find circumcised men are five times more likely to suffer from premature ejaculation. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21492404
And a recent report by the Dutch Medical Association, representing 46,000 physicians and medical students and backed by seven other medical associations, explains that the male foreskin is an important erotogenic structure for which no medical benefit justifies its routine removal, that it is comparable to certain forms of FGM, and that it violates children’s rights to bodily integrity. www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306
Sue Schafer should woman up and publicly apologize for her sexist comments about males. Both boys and girls are responsible for teen pregnancy, which should more accurately be called teen parenthood. To target one sex and joke about reducing their sexual pleasure through genital mutilation is outrageous.
Marc Angelucci
NCFM Vice President
Re: comment by cay, "Teen pregnancy rates have actually been decreasing since the 1990's." SERIOUSLY, pls go to YouTube, enter '90 senior girls pregnant in Memphis High School' in findbar & it will pull up 50 videos about the subject. Yes sir, that whole sexual liberation & not shaming girls (the gatekeepers of their own vagina) is REALLY WORKING (LOL). Black single moms (60%), white single moms (40%)–hooray for sexual liberation.
That same liberal/fem mindset should be applied to bank robbery, murder & rape—equal opportunity with no shame for either gender but wait, when it comes to crime men get EXecuted (shamed) & women get EXcused (vag pass).
Re: Marc's comment, great reply. In 1988 the MO General Assembly revamped MO 3rd decree rape laws because prosecutors were complaining they would not enforce said laws because it required that both boy & girl be prosecuted & prosecutors feared losing re-election if they inflamed women/fem voters.
A new law was passed, sex between teens ok if within 5 yrs of age of consent. A 13 yr old girl could have sex w/18 yr old boy but if boy 19 he would be charged w/statutory rape (which carries a mandatory 10 yr sentence) but girl not charged at all. When it comes to sex or sex crimes, men/boys are EXecuted, women/girls are EXcused.
Formerly the “age of consent” was about when one could consent to MARRIAGE, not FORNICATION.
SO it’s OK, sort of, for a 17 year old boy/man to knock up a 12 year old girl? He has only an 11th grade education, no job, or a burger flipping job at Burger Kink, but for a 25 year old man, who’s has a regular job, a business, an associate degree, to knock her up isn’t OK?
Makes sense. Real sense.
It is irresponsibility or lack of knowledge on the part of both parties. Teen pregnancy rates have actually been decreasing since the 1990's, most likely due to better access to and more knowledge regarding the use of contraceptives. I'm sure the AIDS epidemic also helped spurred more teens to use condoms.
In the 1950's it was "boys will be boys" while girls were held responsible and shamed. It was the girl's responsibility to "keep their legs closed." Girls were sluts and boys were, well, boys. With the sexual liberation, girls stopped keeping their legs closed and boys were, well, boys.
Where do you get your facts, Cay? Some states to this day still prosecute only the male when two teens have sex. It's the boy who is blamed.
The weird thing is that teen pregnancy increased with the sexual liberation of the females.
So if the teenage woman want sex it is their right, if boys wants sex, well… that is irresponsibility.
AND…if he refuses, he has damaged her self-esteem, she will give either on an eating or starving binge, cut herself…
My understanding is that circumcising boys started as a Jewish thing. It was supposed to keep the penis clean. The reason gentiles adopted it is unknown. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with pleasure!! What does "girls have rights, boys have responsibility" have to do with anything?
In the U.S. and in England it was promoted to prevent masturbation.
Doesn’t work. If anything, circumcisees have to beat it longer and harder to get off.
It originzated in Egypt and in judaism as a ritual of sacrifice, not to keep the penis clean. It has everything to do with sex discrimination because we protect girls from even the slightest incision on their genitals even for religious reasons or for purported health reasons but allow the removal of the male foreskin which is the same as removing the clitoral hood, the most popular form of female circumcision. Total double standard.
Female circumcision:
"The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth."
The only health reason that would justify genital mutilation is a malignancy. It is almost always done for religious or social reasons long past infancy. The removal of men's foreskins, while completely unnecessary, does not result in the loss of all physical pleasure during intercourse or, in the more extreme cases, actual health hazards. Educate yourself.
Cay, you miss the point – even the slightest incision on a girl's genitals is illegal, while removing a highly innervated erogenous organ from a boy is ok. That is called a double standard. And clitoridectormy is essentially removal of the clitoral hood regardless of whether it is sometimes or often done along with removal of the clitoris. The point is that removing only the clitoral hood is illegal, and it is equivalent to male circumcision. Try reading the Dutch Medical Associaton's report on male circumcision, which debunks the myth that it differs significantly from female circumcision, which I linked above.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a known opponent of FGM, explains how MGM can be even worse than FGM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNhM-F089E
A difference is that reduction or removal of the female prepuce (hood) increases sexual sensitivity while reduction or removal of the male prepuce (foreskin) decreases sexual sensitivity. “Circumcised” clitorises are still usually recessed, minimizing friction from panties. The hood is a very small piece of tissue. It is insensitive relative to the clitoral glans.
Circ’ed penises are exposed to friction from pants. The foreskin is half to three-quarters of the penile skin. Its inner surface and in particular the ridged band is densely enervated, containing the majority of penile receptors.
Circ of males is a far greater injury to the man than preputial circ of females is to them. Yet the female’s tiny scrap of skin is protected by law but the male’s many times larger “scrap” isn’t.
Joan,
When you say that circumcision has "absolutely NOTHING to do with pleasure", you are wrong and ill-informed.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia have written that the foreskin is "composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue." According to a study by Sorrells et al. (2007), the five most sensitive areas of the penis on the foreskin and the glans are more sensitive in the uncircumcised penis.
So, circumcision has EVERYTHING to do with reduced sensation, although it does not have much effect on libido.
Hope this helps.
Ph.D., my ass. Circumcision pre-dated the 2007 study you're citing by a couple thousand years, so while circumcision might have the effect of reduced sensation, you have spectacularly failed in establishing the proposition that circumcision was created for the purpose of reduced sensation. We'd need a study dated, oh, 100 BC or so for that. *smacks forehead*
Hope this helps.
Hungry, he didn't say it was originally created to reduce sensation. He said it has everything to do with sensation because it DOES reduce sensation, not because that's why it was originally introduced. And in fact, in the U.S. and England, that is largely why it was introduced, as a means of preventing masturbation.
Don’t forget:
B.S. = Bull Shart
M.S. = More of the Same
Ph.D. = Piled higher and Deeper
According to Jewish tradition circ, which then was “docking” or shortening the foreskin, originated with Abraham, the traditional father of the Jews (Israelites) and Arabs (Ishmaelites). “Only” the tip of the foreskin was clipped off. This is NOT “just a scrap of skin” but is the Ridged Band, the most richly enervated part of the foreskin.
Removal of any part of anyone’s sexual or other body parts is a crime.
Many religions throughout the ages have had ritual mutilations of either males, females or both. We moderns prohibit all but earring piercing and male circumcision of minors. To left to go.
It is indeed quite outrageous. This whole thing stinks of "girls have rights, boys have responsibility."