Female Genital Mutilation at Cornell University

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Having actually seen a decent sized clitoris the only "hang-up" I had was whether sucking on it would be painful or not.

Seriously though what part of the glans gets removed during circumcision. Mine looks fine.

[Kuroji]

You know, I wonder if that's why a friend of mine has an absurdly small clitoris... it's entirely possible that they gave it a snip and snipped too much.

There's like... nothing there. It threw me way off when I saw it. Or rather when I almost didn't... I have never, ever seen one that small in my life. It explained a lot, come to think about it.

[Aaron]

And this is why laws against female genital mutilaton should never include exceptions for anyone under the age of 21. Jesus. There's nothing else to say, really, except that the parents who let this happen to their daughters should be punished and the children taken away. Anyone who authorizes surgery on their child because a doctor says their clitoris is too large should not be raising that child. This probably wasn't illegal in the way it happened, though, so the best that can be hoped for is for public outrage to make it stop.

Hang on now, the average citizen is no way qualified to judge that the doc is wrong. If they know nothing of medicine and they have a doc telling them this (perhaps several) and it's approved by the APA, then what are they supposed to do?

[Zed]

That's the fundamental problem with the medicalization of society. Doctors get too much power.

[Serafina]

That's the fundamental problem with the medicalization of society. Doctors get too much power.

Yeah, that's only true if no one checks that power.

These problems tend to arrive more often if only a small group of researchers engages a particular theme, since no one else bothers. And it only happens when there already ARE social prejudices - there are no such problems with most fields of medicine.

[Zed]

There're large problems with medicalization in modern fields of medicine, although most problems can be found on the level of psychiatry - the DSM-IV is a deeply flawed work that pathologizes behavior that should never be labelled a disease. One gets diagnosed with a medical condition if one collapses emotionally for too long a period (I believe six months) after losing a long-held family business, for example. There're a number of problems with this approach: (1) it gives doctors too much power, (2) it reduces social problems to individual pathologies, (3) it allows remedies that wouldn't be tolerable otherwise, and (4) it can medicalize politics. (See, for example, Peter Conrad's work on the medicalization of hyperkinesis/autism.)

If you think that medicalization has been limited to a few minor instances like the one described in this thread, you're mistaken. Don't forget the reduction of political dissent to a disease in Russia, as well as sterilization and euthanasia in the United States and Germany in the first half of this century.

One has to be careful not to overstep the line and attack the medical profession as a whole, but it's also important not to underestimate the possible power the medical profession can wield, and the heinous consequences to which that can lead.

[Vendetta]

There're a number of problems with this approach: (1) it gives doctors too much power, (2) it reduces social problems to individual pathologies, (3) it allows remedies that wouldn't be tolerable otherwise, and (4) it can medicalize politics. (See, for example, Peter Conrad's work on the medicalization of hyperkinesis/autism.)

There's another issue to medicalisation, which is one that Ben Goldacre frequently talks about, in that it creates the expectation that there is a medical remedy to everything. Can't stick to a diet? Take some pills, etc. It means that when doctors try to suggest lifestyle measures, especially for chronic conditions, their advice isn't taken because people expect medicine. They want pills, not sensible advice.

[Raw Shark]

Having actually seen a decent sized clitoris the only "hang-up" I had was whether sucking on it would be painful or not.

It varies. Some "well-endowed" girls like it, but some find it way too intense or are too distracted by the (probably false, all things considered) assumption that you will associate the act with homosexuality. It pays to ask first.

Seriously though what part of the glans gets removed during circumcision. Mine looks fine.

Seconded. WTF? I don't agree with circumcision, but they didn't touch my glans as far as I can tell...

[ArmorPierce]

I think the argument is that foreskin is an integral part of the sexual experience. Arguments I've seen is that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, circumcising decreases sensitivity of the glans (I've seen a study that may invalidate this) decreasing pleasure whilst at the same time reduces a man's self-control and ability to last as long as a uncircumcised man (which don't make sense because you would think that desensitizing would have the affect of making you last longer not to mention I've seen testimonial from people about the opposite being true for the most part). Basically the argument is that circumcising makes you less of a man and have a lesser ability to please your woman. The argument is stupid and I don't think it does anything but polarize the participants. Most people want to believe what they are or what they got is the best. In America, most people tend to prefer circumcised, at least aesthetically, probably due to it being most common here and people tend to like what they are familiar with.

Now I am against circumcision at youth because it is a unnecessary procedure that is permanent, but I personally don't have a problem with it being done to me.

Oh, and nice sig Raw Shark

[Terralthra]

I think the argument is that foreskin is an integral part of the sexual experience. Arguments I've seen is that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, circumcising decreases sensitivity of the glans (I've seen a study that may invalidate this) decreasing pleasure whilst at the same time reduces a man's self-control and ability to last as long as a uncircumcised man (which don't make sense because you would think that desensitizing would have the affect of making you last longer not to mention I've seen testimonial from people about the opposite being true for the most part). Basically the argument is that circumcising makes you less of a man and have a lesser ability to please your woman. The argument is stupid and I don't think it does anything but polarize the participants. Most people want to believe what they are or what they got is the best. In America, most people tend to prefer circumcised, at least aesthetically, probably due to it being most common here and people tend to like what they are familiar with.

Now I am against circumcision at youth because it is a unnecessary procedure that is permanent, but I personally don't have a problem with it being done to me.

Oh, and nice sig Raw Shark

The argument is that the foreskin is the most sensitive and that the foreskin protects the glans, which is supposed to be very sensitive. Exposing the glans to constant stimulation by removing the covering both deadens a lot of the sensitivity and kills the cells that are supposed to be generated the lubrication that the glans is supposed to have (it's a mucus membrane). It also allows penetration to go back and forth easier, by reducing the amount of skin friction.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I think the argument is that foreskin is an integral part of the sexual experience.

Nope, sorry. If it's an 'integral part of the sexual experience', then shouldn't society have collapsed centuries ago when circumcision became widespread? Being uncircumcised makes sex a lot easier, but pleasurable sex is still entirely possible for circumcised people

Arguments I've seen is that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, circumcising decreases sensitivity of the glans (I've seen a study that may invalidate this)

It's only partially true. Speaking personally (I'm uncut), the foreskin doesn't seem to be noticeably more sensitive than any other part of the penis. What it does do, though, is provide a sort of natural sleeve for the head, which reduces friction both during sex and masturbation. So while it may not be more sensitive on its own, it allows sex and masturbation to be more of a rolling motion, rather than abrasive rubbing. This will reduce the wear and tear on skin and nerves in that area (and wear and tear on the lovely lady you happen to be with), which means your general sensitivity and pleasure will last longer in life.

decreasing pleasure whilst at the same time reduces a man's self-control and ability to last as long as a uncircumcised man (which don't make sense because you would think that desensitizing would have the affect of making you last longer not to mention I've seen testimonial from people about the opposite being true for the most part).

A few things wrong with this. One, testimonial is trumped by medical facts. A circumcised penis will rub more abrasively, both during sex and masturbation, which leads to a higher likelihood of discomfort and friction damage to that highly sensitive area of flesh on both men and women. Second, there was an article posted here not too long ago debunking the whole myth that 'longer is better' in terms of how long sex lasts. Male or female, generally five to fifteen minutes is the ideal time for everyone. After that the likelihood of things becoming uncomfortable, painful, or just boring starts to rise dramatically.

Basically the argument is that circumcising makes you less of a man and have a lesser ability to please your woman.

Leaving aside the fact that it's entirely possible to 'please your woman' without using your penis at all, pragmatically speaking, this is entirely true. Candy-coat it all you want, circumcision damages the penis. Everything else being equal, a damaged penis will not be able to fulfill its evolutionary role as well as an undamaged penis.

The argument is stupid and I don't think it does anything but polarize the participants. Most people want to believe what they are or what they got is the best.

Personal opinions count for jack shit when trumped by medical science.

In America, most people tend to prefer circumcised, at least aesthetically, probably due to it being most common here and people tend to like what they are familiar with.

And when tradition counts as a valid argument, this will have weight.

Now I am against circumcision at youth because it is a unnecessary procedure that is permanent, but I personally don't have a problem with it being done to me.

Of course not. Few people who had it done 'have a problem' with it because it happened over a decade before they even got to personally test out their sexual apparatus. You don't have a problem with it because you simply cannot know what it's like not being circumcised. I, on the other hand, can get a better idea. I'm not cut, so naturally I know what that's like. I can also, if I cared to, pull back the foreskin and try things without the evolutionary benefit of that little sleeve. I don't make a habit of this because it's fucking uncomfortable.

This is the same logic people use when they say, "Well I was beaten as a child and I'm fine, so I don't see the problem with it!"

[ArmorPierce]

The argument is that the foreskin is the most sensitive and that the foreskin protects the glans, which is supposed to be very sensitive. Exposing the glans to constant stimulation by removing the covering both deadens a lot of the sensitivity and kills the cells that are supposed to be generated the lubrication that the glans is supposed to have (it's a mucus membrane). It also allows penetration to go back and forth easier, by reducing the amount of skin friction.

The particular study that I referred to was posted here which was conducted by a anti-circumcision doctor but I am unable to locate it at the moment. Here are a couple links that suggests otherwise http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2724473320070727 http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story? ... 936&page=2 . Note second one has cringe worthy statement about god creating sex.

It's only partially true. Speaking personally (I'm uncut), the foreskin doesn't seem to be noticeably more sensitive than any other part of the penis. What it does do, though, is provide a sort of natural sleeve for the head, which reduces friction both during sex and masturbation. So while it may not be more sensitive on its own, it allows sex and masturbation to be more of a rolling motion, rather than abrasive rubbing. This will reduce the wear and tear on skin and nerves in that area (and wear and tear on the lovely lady you happen to be with), which means your general sensitivity and pleasure will last longer in life.

I can give you that it it provides a easier time with masturbation and perhaps somewhat less abrasion during sex, but is it really enough to make a significant difference? Only time sex causes any significant abrasion form me is when I have sex with a condom.

A few things wrong with this. One, testimonial is trumped by medical facts. A circumcised penis will rub more abrasively, both during sex and masturbation, which leads to a higher likelihood of discomfort and friction damage to that highly sensitive area of flesh on both men and women. Second, there was an article posted here not too long ago debunking the whole myth that 'longer is better' in terms of how long sex lasts. Male or female, generally five to fifteen minutes is the ideal time for everyone. After that the likelihood of things becoming uncomfortable, painful, or just boring starts to rise dramatically.

All right. I was talking about hearing from anti-circumcision arguments was that a circumcised man lasts shorter which is something that I've heard on this board.

Leaving aside the fact that it's entirely possible to 'please your woman' without using your penis at all, pragmatically speaking, this is entirely true. Candy-coat it all you want, circumcision damages the penis. Everything else being equal, a damaged penis will not be able to fulfill its evolutionary role as well as an undamaged penis.

Evolution doesn't make things perfect at fulfilling that function at present state nor does it mean that it's the best possible design. It just means that it is able to fulfill it's required function. There's are some insects where the male's penis has spikes and scars the female at every encounter. I am sure there are dildos that are superior to any male penis. Show me the scientific research where the uncircumcised penis was more pleasurable than the circumcised penis.

Personal opinions count for jack shit when trumped by medical science.

No it doesn't but you seem to have made up your mind even though doctors and medical researchers have yet to do so.

Also, the way you are breaking up my post is taking what I'm saying out of context.

And when tradition counts as a valid argument, this will have weight.

Err... I was saying most people will just say they prefer what they are used to, not using that as an argument in itself. Again the way you are breaking up my post is taking what I said out of context.

Of course not. Few people who had it done 'have a problem' with it because it happened over a decade before they even got to personally test out their sexual apparatus. You don't have a problem with it because you simply cannot know what it's like not being circumcised. I, on the other hand, can get a better idea. I'm not cut, so naturally I know what that's like. I can also, if I cared to, pull back the foreskin and try things without the evolutionary benefit of that little sleeve. I don't make a habit of this because it's fucking uncomfortable.

Your personal opinion doesn't have much scientific weight neither. Anecdote, my friend had a girl telling him that he should get circumcised.

[Molyneux]

I really have trouble understanding why there is no legislation in place preventing any and all irreversible modification to a minor except where their health is a direct factor.

[Oskuro]

I'd say there probably is, but the problem lies in the definition of what constitutes a health risk.

As for social perception of the size of a clitoris, I've had people claiming that a woman with an enlarged clitoris is a hermaphrodite because she has a "miniature penis". Statement that was uttered with disgust, by the way. Apparently people have a hard time understanding that male and female genitalia are built from the same basic structure, and that sizes and ratios are variable, not to mention that a clitoris IS a miniature penis (or a miniature glans, to be more precise).

Funny anecdote, understanding the clit as a mini-penis with its own foreskin has actually enhanced my sexual life by making it easier to both locate it and correctly stimulate it (as in "if certain direct stimulation bothers ME, it will most definitely bother her"). Guess it pays off to understand how things work.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I mad a comment about that earlier in terms of how men perceive the Clit in terms of viewing it as a penis and thier own insecurities

A big part of the perception between a Males penis and a Woman’s clitoris is largely male biased in terms of how men view masculinity and femininity. Basically, from what I have observed of heterosexual men, an above average clitoris is views as "freakish" because it more closely resembles a male penis.

Rawsharks anecdote earlier about someone he knows being called "shemale" and being mocked for having a large clitoris I think is a valid example of most men’s viewpoint. A clitoris that is of any size other then a tiny nub probably makes men nervous precisely because it resembles a penis. With that in context I can see a sort of social pressure on women that having a small clitoris is more "social acceptable" to other

Of course what you mention about indeed thinking of it as a dick is worth noting. Given the amount of added stimulation an enlarged clitoris would provide to a women, Heterosexual men should celebrate having a girlfriend with an 'above average' clitoris.

[Terralthra]

Of course what you mention about indeed thinking of it as a dick is worth noting. Given the amount of added stimulation an enlarged clitoris would provide to a women, Heterosexual men should celebrate having a girlfriend with an 'above average' clitoris.

That's assuming that a larger clitoris has equivalent nerve density. It could simply have the same amount of nerve endings as a more normally-sized one, just spread out more.

[loomer]

Even if that's the case, you can still do more to a larger clitoris - it lets you stimulate the nerves in ways that'd be tricky with a smaller one.

[Broomstick]

Still, I would like you to provide some evidence of this being rather common or customary, and de rigueur at some institutions, with something besides ex cathedra statements.

What, the American Academy of Pediatrics isn't good enough for you? They establish the guidelines for pediatric care in the US. They certainly seem to think it's OK and should be done in a lot of cases.

I am certainly not obligated to provide your citations for you. The least you could do is provide a link. Simply alleging the existence of corroboration in text does not qualify as supporting your assertions. Please cite academic/professional sources directly, please.

I will have to thank you for prompting me to research this again - it appears that the AAP updated their policies in 2006, which I was unaware of. The consensus statement on intersex disorders appears here. It's far too long to quote, so if you're interested follow the link.

In the 1950's Johns Hopkins under John Mooney (whose name is reviled among many these days) pioneered the "concealment-centered" model of treatment where infants were rushed into surgery to "normalize" their genitals and then their true medical history and name of their condition kept secret from them, ideally for life, despite the fact that some intersex conditions, aside from the genital and sex issue, can have life threatening complications that can be screened for IF you know the risk is there! In other words, keeping their intersex condition secret was rated more important than preventing later a later health crisis! Patients and their guardians were denied access to their complete medical records.

This is a single physician, and I am familiar with his unfortunate patients. But this discussion was explicitly a discussion of prevalence, and therefore this does not establish anything.

Mooney was enormously influential in developing treatment protocols for intersex problems of all sorts in the latter half of the 20th Century.

You also moved the goalpost from sexual bigotry against normal but "large clitoris" women to (by your own account) actually intersexed people who were treated in an unethical, non-consensual, pseudoscientific manner. You will need to adequate link these intersexed mistreatment claims to the original issue of sexually healthy "big clitoris" women.

The medical profession does, in fact, think oversized clitorises are an intersex condition called clitoromegaly. Hence, the reference to the condition in the linked consensus statement and cautions about surgery to alter the condition leading to possibly loss of sensitivity. In other words, no matter how healthy a clitoris or woman is, above a certain size it is seen as abnormal and clearly some feel there is a need for correction of the condition.

[Raw Shark]

[snip] Rawsharks anecdote earlier about someone he knows being called "shemale" and being mocked for having a large clitoris I think is a valid example of most men’s viewpoint. A clitoris that is of any size other then a tiny nub probably makes men nervous precisely because it resembles a penis. With that in context I can see a sort of social pressure on women that having a small clitoris is more "social acceptable" to other

That did indeed happen to her, but let's bear in mind that it was some douchebag in junior high or high school who didn't know what was good for him that said that and the only problem she had with it in college was her own lingering anxiety. I would not characterize it as the point of view likely to be taken by "most" mature heterosexual men, because (let's be honest here) more than half of us are lucky to be looking at a vulva at all, though I would not dispute that some of us will indeed never grow the fuck up.

[snip] Given the amount of added stimulation an enlarged clitoris would provide to a women, Heterosexual men should celebrate having a girlfriend with an 'above average' clitoris.

Yeah, I don't have any figures about nerve density, but from what I've seen it's a pretty sweet deal on her end.

Oh, and nice sig Raw Shark

Glad you like it. ;]