Welcome to SomaliNet Forums, a friendly and gigantic Somali centric active community. Login to hide this block

You are currently viewing this page as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, ask questions, educate others, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many, many other features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join SomaliNet forums today! Please note that registered members with over 50 posts see no ads whatsoever! Are you new to SomaliNet? These forums with millions of posts are just one section of a much larger site. Just visit the front page and use the top links to explore deep into SomaliNet oasis, Somali singles, Somali business directory, Somali job bank and much more. Click here to login. If you need to reset your password, click here. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Infant Genital Mutilation

This forum is dedicated for women, beautiful Somali ladies.

Moderators: Moderators, Junior Moderators

OUR SPONSOR: LOGIN TO HIDE
LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Tue Dec 30, 2014 11:38 am

Circumcision: Social, Sexual, Psychological Realities

Should Circumcision Tradition Trump Ethics And Empirical Evidence?

Published on September 18, 2011 by Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D. in Moral Landscapes

We continue examining myths about circumcision, including traditions, social and sexual relations.

NOTE: Primary author is Lillian Dell'Aquila Cannon (see her blog), with assistance from Dan Bollinger


Part 3

Myth: You Have To Circumcise The Baby So That He Will Match His Dad.

Reality Check: The major difference that boys notice is that dad's penis has hair, and is larger. When a boy notices the difference between his foreskin and his father's lack of one, just tell him, "When your father was born, they thought that you had to cut off the foreskin, but now we know better." Since when does parent/child bonding require a matching set of genitals? If it did, could mothers and sons bond, or fathers and daughters? The real issue at play here is protecting the father: if it is okay for his son to not be circumcised, then he did not have to be circumcised, and so he is missing something from his penis. It is not right to harm the child's body to spare the father's emotions.

Myth: My First Son Is Circumcised, So I Have To Circumcise My Second Son.

Reality Check: You can explain this to your children the same way as with the circumcised father. There are plenty of families who changed their minds after one or more sons were circumcised, and didn't circumcise any more. As with the "matching dad" myth, what is really at issue here are the parents' feelings: if they don't circumcise the second son, then that means that they didn't have to circumcise the first child, and so they harmed their first child. This can be unbearably painful, but it is not right to continue to harm future children to avoid dealing with pain and regret. As they say, two wrongs do not make a right.

Myth: My Husband Is The One With The Penis, So It Is His Choice.

Reality Check: If your husband is circumcised, he has no idea what having a foreskin is like, and he is likely operating from a psychological position of needing to believe that what was done to him was beneficial and important. (See here for an extended discussion of pre and post circumcised adult men and much more by Marilyn Milos, director of NOCIRC.) The baby is the one who is going to have to live with the decision for the rest of his life, not your husband. The baby will be the one who has to use the penis for urination and sex -- it should be his decision.

Myth: Everyone Is Circumcised.

Reality Check: Actually, world-wide, only 30% of men are circumcised, and most of these men are Muslim (WHO 2007). Most modern, Westernized countries have rates well below 20%. In the United States about 25 years ago, around 85% of babies were circumcised. The rates have dropped substantially to 32% in 2009, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control (El Becheraoui 2010).

Myth: Circumcision Is An Important Tradition That Has Been Going On Forever.

Reality Check: In the United States, circumcision wasn't popularized until Victorian times, when a few doctors began to recommend it to prevent children from masturbating. Dr. Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) advocated circumcision for pubescent boys and girls to stop masturbation: "A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement" (Kellogg 1877). Circumcision caught on among the sex-negative Victorians, but only wealthy parents could afford it. In 1932, only 31% of men were circumcised; this peaked around 85% in 1980, and has been dropping ever since (Laumann 1997, Wallerstein 1980). Far from an ancient tradition, it was only popular in post-war America; think of it as "your parent's body mod."

Myth: The Other Boys Will Make Fun Of Him.

Reality Check: What other cosmetic surgeries will we perform on our children to prevent them from being teased? Should a "flat" girl get implants? What about the boy with a small penis? What surgery would be recommended for him? Circumcised babies are the minority now, and so intact will not be mocked. Plus, as our husbands say, "You just don't look at or comment on another man's penis in the locker room."

Myth: Circumcision Makes Sex Better For The Woman.

Reality Check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

Myth: Women Don't Want To Have Sex With Uncircumcised Men.

Reality Check: In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999).

Myth: "Being Circumcised Doesn't Affect My Sex Life."

Reality Check: Men who are circumcised are 60% more likely to have difficulty identifying and expressing their feelings, which can cause marital difficulties (Bollinger 2010). Circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, use drugs like Viagra, and to suffer from premature ejaculation (Bollinger 2010, Tang 2011). Men who were circumcised as adults experienced decreased sensation and decreased quality of erection, and both they and their partners experienced generally less satisfaction with sex (Kim 2007, Solinis 2007).

Myth: "If I Were Any More Sensitive, It Would Be A Problem."

Reality Check: The foreskin contains several special structures that increase sexual pleasure, including the frenulum and ridged band (the end of the foreskin where it becomes internal), both of which are removed in circumcision. The LEAST sensitive parts of the foreskin are more sensitive than the MOST sensitive parts of the circumcised penis (Sorrells 2007). In other words, if you wanted to decrease a penis' sensitivity the most, circumcision would be the ideal surgery. The foreskin has nerves called fine-touch receptors which are clustered in the ridged band (Cold 1999). This type of nerve is also found in the lips and fingertips. To get an idea of the sensation these nerves provide, try this experiment: first lightly stroke your fingertip over the back of the other hand. Now stroke your fingertip over the palm of your hand. Feel the difference? That is the kind of sensation the foreskin provides, and the circumcised man is missing.

It may feel like the penis is overly sensitive to a circumcised man because there is little sensation left to indicate excitement, leading to unexpected premature ejaculation (a common problem with circumcised young men). However, as circumcised penises age they become calloused and much less sensitive. (See the interview listed below for more details.)


Should concern about family or community traditions hold priority over the short and longterm welfare of the individual? Certainly not in the case of infant circumcision.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mor ... -realities


Emphasis are my own.


LoveandLight.

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:51 pm

Part 4: Circumcision Ethics And Economics

Let’s Face Reality And Abandon The Harmful Practice

Published on September 25, 2011 by Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D. in Moral Landscapes

Infant Circumcision Is An Ethical Issue That Has Lifelong Effects On The Child And Societal Costs.

NOTE: Primary author is Lillian Dell'Aquila Cannon (see her blog), with assistance from Dan Bollinger

No Medical Association In The World Recommends Routine Infant Circumcision. None.

The American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Circumcision Says:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." (AAP 1999)

The British Medical Association Says:

"[P]arental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child." (BMA 2006)

The Royal Australasian College Of Physicians Says:

"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand." (RACP 2010)

The Canadian Paediatric Society Says:

"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." (CPS 1996)

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG - Netherlands) Policy Statement Is Wonderfully Clear:

"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene... circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications... Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity." (KNMG 2010)

Circumcision Wastes Money.

Medicaid spends $198 million each year on routine infant circumcision in the 33 states that still pay for it, a procedure its own guidelines consider to be medically unnecessary. Private insurance programs are reimbursing an additional $677 million, raising prices for us all (Craig 2006.) In addition to the cost of circumcision itself, correcting its complications are said to double the cost, bringing the total bill to $1.75 billion each year. Is this what we should be spending money on during a recession and at a time when healthcare costs are skyrocketing?

Circumcision Violates The Hippocratic Oath To "First, Do No Harm."

Doctors have an ethical duty to treat the patient by the most conservative means possible, but removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need absolutely harms the patient. In the case of routine infant circumcision, nothing was diseased, and thus nothing justifies its removal. Medical personnel who support infant circumcision in any way should reexamine their ethical duties to the child.

Everyone Has A Right To Bodily Autonomy And Self-Determination.


This is a fundamental tenet of international human rights law (UNESCO 2005). As babies cannot speak for themselves, they need special protection. Balancing the potential benefits of circumcision with the definite risks can be difficult decision, but the only person qualified to make this decision is the owner of the penis, as he is the one who is going to have to live with the results, not his parents.

Parents' Aesthetic Preferences Are Not Valid Reasons For Circumcision.

If a mother thinks her daughter's nose is too big, should she force her to get a nose job? If a father prefers large breasts, can he force his daughter to get breast implants? If a woman prefers circumcised men, can she force her son to be circumcised?

Even If You Are Fine With Being Circumcised, Your Son May Not Be.

If you have never had a foreskin, you cannot possibly know what having one would feel like. You only know what it feels like to not have a foreskin. You cannot know now how your son will feel in 20 or 30 years. If you have your son circumcised, he may grow up to regret the decision you made for him, but circumcision is irreversible. (Yes, men can partially restore their foreskins, but it is difficult and the sensitive nerve endings are gone forever.) Leave the decision to your son. It is his penis. He deserves to decide for himself.

Parents Have A Duty To Educate Themselves On Circumcision Rather Than Do It Just Because It Was Done To Them.

As parents, we are entrusted by God or the universe or by nature with the care of our babies. They truly are a gift, but one that we do not get to keep. We have a responsibility to care for them as best as we can, because they cannot speak nor care for themselves. Though they are babies now, and we have to make decisions for them, they will be adults, with minds and feelings of their own. We need to make decisions for them that we will be proud to stand behind now and in the future. If your son asks you why you had him circumcised, how will you answer? "Because I am circumcised and I needed your penis to match mine?" "Because I didn't trust you to be able to make your own decisions?" When making this decision for your son, be brutally honest with yourself. What does your decision serve: the child's rights, or your ego?

For clear, easy and plain-language help making the circumcision decision, try the Circumcision Decision Maker at Warning: There are graphic images of Male Genitalia in this website
http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/.

Just Because It Has Been A "Tradition" Does Not Make It Right.

Slavery and child labor were traditions sanctioned by religions and other authorities. But we abandoned those practices because they were unjust and harmful. Infant circumcision, similarly supported by authorities, should be abandoned by the people who care for children because it is unjust and harmful.

It's Time To Face Our Discomfort And Admit That Circumcision Was A Mistake.

Routine infant circumcision is a 90-year aberration in the more than 150,000 years that Homo sapiens has existed on this planet. It's a remnant of times when people thought it was okay to beat your wife and children, that babies couldn't feel pain and so could be operated on without any anesthesia, and that it was bad to enjoy your sexuality. We've discarded all these other ideas, and now we're discarding circumcision, too.

It Is Time To Face Reality.

If you are a circumcised man, or a parent who circumcised his child because you thought it was good for him, you have a painful task in front of you. It's time to face reality:

You were circumcised because your dad was circumcised because everyone else was circumcised because 140 years ago, some perverted doctors wanted to stop boys from masturbating. Being circumcised isn't better, and it isn't popular anymore. The 70% of the world's men who have foreskins almost never choose to have them cut off and consider them to be the best part of the penis. You don't have this part of your penis, and that's really terrible, but it would be even more terrible to make the same mistake with your own child.

The Future

Circumcision is ending with the generation being born now - only 32% of babies born in 2009 in the USA were circumcised. Boys born today who keep their foreskins are not going to be mocked, because they're in the majority, and because people now are more informed. Uncircumcised boys are not going to be scarred because their penises do not match their fathers'. The myths are dying - more and more people are realizing that leaving children's penises intact is better.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mor ... -economics

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:42 pm

Baby Boys Tortured And Terrorized!

Most baby boys who are subjected to the Horror that is Male Infant Genital Mutilation experience Near Death Excruciating Pain during the procedure, as they are not given Anesthesia. These babies suffer subsequently as well. Urinating will sting the baby boy's raw Glans Penis and cause him tremendous pain.

The baby boy is Not The Property of his parents! Actions have consequences. Those who Mutilate their children might one day have to answer for what they have done, even if they were Ignorant. Parents have a choice. They can protect their children. The Baby Boy has no choice, and cannot protect himself. He will struggle when Tortured. This could result in the Torturer cutting the Glans right off.

Is Cutting Off A Healthy And Integral Part Of The Baby Boy's Penis Beneficial?



Mothers, Please Think Long And Hard!




I Encourage All Who Read These Words To Watch A Circumcision Video Of A Baby Boy Not Given Anesthesia. I Warn You In Advance; You Might Lose Your Lunch And/Or Cry!




Parents, Please Do Not Gamble With Your Baby Boy's Life.

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:12 pm

Part 5 What Is the Greatest Danger for an Uncircumcised Boy?


A doctor’s visit can harm your boy.

Published on October 23, 2011 by Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D. in Moral Landscapes

*Written by John Geisheker, J.D., LL.M.


WHAT IS THE MOST DANGEROUS EVENT FACING AN 'INTACT' (NOT CIRCUMCISED) BOY?

Aside from circumcision? ... a well-baby visit. Our physicians' international non-profit intervenes in over 100 cases each year of intact boys who were injured by a primary care provider. The injury is called 'PFFR,' or Premature Forcible Foreskin Retraction. We conservatively estimate the annual incidence in the U.S. at more than 100,000 cases. Ironically, many occur when a parent takes the child to a well-baby visit, at 6, 12, or 24 months; but this injury might occur at any age. The children we have helped range in age from one week to 12 years.

Here is a typical email we receive:

Dear Doctors:

At a well-baby visit yesterday for my uncircumcised son Jonah, 18-months, the doctor pushed his foreskin back so hard I could see my boy's entire glans, which was oozing blood. The Dr. told me I must do this at every bath or my child "will need to be circumcised for sure." Jonah now screams when we change him, is restless, and seems to be in pain. Is this really necessary? It does not seem reasonable to hurt a boy in order to clean him. Please help us.

Signed -G.W., Puzzled in Peoria.



HOW COULD THIS INJURY POSSIBLY HAPPEN?

At birth the penis is under-developed. The foreskin is fused to the glans (head) by a normal connective membrane, the balano-preputial lamina, (translation: glans-foreskin layer). The two are functionally an undifferentiated single structure. It takes many years for this membrane to naturally dissipate, a few cells at a time. The average age for full foreskin retraction without trauma is ten years, with half of all boys at age ten fully retractable, and half not yet so. At age 6, for instance, only 20% of boys are fully retractable (Øster et al., 1968-2005).

Typically this injury occurs when a poorly-trained physician or nurse tells the parent that the child has 'adhesions' (an unnatural tissue connection) which must be separated "for hygiene." He or she will then tear the foreskin from the glans by forcing it towards the abdomen, exposing the entire glans and destroying the boy's protective membrane. Some doctors insert a blunt metal probe or closed hemostat to "lyse the adhesions." Either way, this is intensely painful and traumatic for the child, as well as exposing him to infection, scarring, and even adult sexual problems.


WHAT HAPPENS TO BOYS WHO HAVE BEEN FORCIBLY RETRACTED?

The trauma of tearing the glans and foreskin apart before they separate naturally will cause intense pain, bleeding, swelling, and expose what was formerly a sterile, internal site to infection. The trauma and subsequent infection may create scarring all the way around the foreskin that will make the it inelastic and thus difficult to retract in later life, when adult hygiene will actually be needed. This condition is called phimosis. In older children and adolescents, true phimosis is almost invariably due to forced retraction in childhood with its resultant infection and scarring. (False diagnoses of phimosis are, sadly, commonplace, the clinician mistaking the natural membrane for claimed 'adhesions.')

Pediatrics, a reference text for doctors by Rudolph and Hoffman, warns:

"The prepuce, foreskin, is normally not retractile at birth. The ventral surface of the foreskin is naturally fused to the glans of the penis. At age 6 years, 80 percent of boys still do not have a fully retractile foreskin. By age 17 years, however, 97 to 99 percent of uncircumcised males have a fully retractile foreskin... in particular, there is no indication ever for forceful retraction of the foreskin from the glans. Especially in the newborn and infant, this produces small lacerations in addition to a severe abrasion of the glans. The result is scarring and a resultant secondary phimosis. Thus it is incorrect to teach mothers to retract the foreskin." (Emphasis ours)


WHERE DID THE NOTION OF FORCIBLE RETRACTION ORIGINATE?

The complete answer is a book-length story of medical ignorance, 'hygiene hysteria,' prudery, even outright cruelty—but a short synopsis is possible.

In the mid-19th-century, before doctors discovered germs, they devised a disease theory called 'reflex neurosis.' This theory held that stimulation, (then called 'irritation' or 'neurosis') of sensitive tissue, would cause disease to appear in a distant part of the body (the reflex). As the genitals are intensely sensitive tissue, doctors blamed disease even on innocent touching 'down there.' A refinement of this theory claimed that children touched themselves because smegma, the natural substance that both sexes produce, would sour, become itchy, and draw the child's attention to his (or her) genitalia.

Thus if a boy in 1870 contracted tuberculosis, he was accused of 'irritating' his penis. The solution? Aggressive, regular, internal cleaning -or circumcision. This medical theory was a perfect fit with the sexual mores of the Victorian era. Thus began a hundred-year tradition in English-language medicine of vilifying the genitals, both male and female, as the source not only of disease, but also a potential temptation to offend 'moral hygiene.' Doctors reasoned that rigorous cleaning, drying-up, desensitizing (with acid), or even amputation of genital mucosal tissue (i.e., circumcision) was both a medical and a moral imperative.

Reflex neurosis
survived in English language medicine until well after germs were discovered in 1879. Even in the 1930s some doctors were still advising parents to tie scratchy muslin bags on children's fists to discourage even inadvertent genital contact during sleep. An entire industry of 'anti-masturbation' devices for children developed. (Hoag Levins, 1996).

In an influential article in 1949, a British pediatrician conceded the BPL membrane was normal anatomy, but suggested, erroneously, it should disappear by age three years (Gairdner, 1949). This abbreviated and inflexible timetable -to be fair, an incremental improvement on a theory that this membrane was a 'birth-defect'- thrives today, even though modern, evidence-based medicine has shown otherwise, numerous times since 1968: (Øster, 1968; Kayaba, 1996; Cold & Taylor, 1999; Concepción-Morales, 2002; Ishikawa, 2004; Agawal, 2005; Thorvaldsen and Meyhoff, 2005, Agawal, Mohta, and Anand, 2005.) To reiterate: we have known for over 40 years that it is normal for the foreskin to not retract in children.

It was once standard English-language medical practice (1870-1980) to forcibly separate the glans from the foreskin, either by the doctor or by the parents on doctor's orders, "a little at each bath." Mothers reported disliking this chore as they knew it was painful. (cite available) This pernicious practice is not yet dead, and many grandmothers (and doctors) still cling to it. The American Academy of Pediatrics' has issued a stern (if tardy) prohibition in recent years:

"Until separation occurs, do NOT try to pull the foreskin back - especially an infant's. Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready may severely harm the penis and cause pain, bleeding, and tears in the skin. "

...but this warning is widely flouted by many practicing clinicians.

Reflex neurosis lives on today in locker room jokes about blindness, insanity, and unusual hair growth caused by touching the genitals. But it also lingers as PFFR, premature, forcible, foreskin retraction.


John V. Geisheker, J.D., LL.M.

George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H.

Mark D. Reiss, M.D.

Morris R. Sorrels, M.D.

of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Seattle

Pediatric consultant: Robert S. Van Howe, M.D., M.S.


POSTS IN THIS SERIES

Part 1: Circumcision surgery myths

Part 2: STD/Hygiene myths

Part 3: Social and sexual myths

Part 4: The ethics and economics of circumcision

Part 5: Greatest danger for uncircumcised boys

Part 6: Why continue to harm boys from ignorance of male anatomy


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mor ... mcised-boy

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:46 pm

Part 6 Doctor Ignorance of Male Anatomy Harms Boys

What You Can Do To Protect Boys From Medical Interference

Post published by Darcia Narvaez Ph.D. on Oct 30, 2011 in Moral Landscapes

*Written by John Geisheker, J.D., LL.M.




WHY DO FORCED RETRACTION INJURIES CONTINUE TODAY?

Simplest answer: Folklore -as well as a recognized failure of U.S. medical schools to teach fundamental gross anatomy of male infants. One medical text, Avery's Neonatology (2005), candidly suggests a feeble excuse:

"Because circumcision is so common in the United States, the natural history of the preputial development has been lost, and one must depend on observations made in countries in which circumcision is usually not practiced."

There are, indeed, excellent foreign resources which describe the correct infant anatomy: (Øster, 1968; Kayaba, 1996; Cold & Taylor, 1999; Concepción-Morales, 2002; Ishikawa, 2004; Agawal, 2005; Thorvaldsen and Meyhoff, 2005; Agawal, Mohta, and Anand, 2005.)

...but U.S. medical providers continue to cling to and circulate Victorian myths among themselves.

A recent survey of U.S. medical books, for instance, revealed that only two out of 42 pediatric, nursing, neonatology, and urology texts as well as family health encyclopedias, detailed the correct (minimal) hygiene needs for male infants. The rest featured obsolete, misleading, and potentially injurious advice directly traceable to 19th-century sources.

Many medical texts even depict males as naturally circumcised, thus eliminating a normal body part as if it never existed, and quashing any need to discuss the slow timetable for natural, unaided, foreskin-glans detachment. (Harryman, 2004).

At a national convention of family practice doctors in 2009, for example, only two out of 113 doctors and med students we polled understood the proper, minimal, hygiene needs of a male infant. This is very likely due to the fact that the doctors themselves are circumcised and so inherently see the foreskin as abnormal.


WHAT DOES FORCED RETRACTION HAVE TO DO WITH CIRCUMCISION?

The claimed necessity for foreskin retraction and cleaning is used to 'market' circumcision. Circumcision is touted as a one-time method for parents to avoid the (imaginary) chore of regular genital cleaning. Leaving the genitals of both boys and girls to develop naturally, as is the case in Europe, has not yet fully arrived in American medical training or clinical practice.

Many U.S. families have an anecdote of their Uncle Charlie's distressing circumcision as a young boy. Very likely, though, his circumcision was claimed to 'cure' a normal condition -the natural fusion of glans and foreskin. Or possibly, Uncle Charlie was forcibly retracted as an infant and developed true secondary phimosis due to inelastic scarring. For over a century such cases were used as a scare tactic to convince parents to choose infant circumcision. Doctors claimed, "He'll only need it later when it is more painful." In truth, phimosis is both over-diagnosed and easily treated without circumcision, with topical steroids and stretching exercises. And in any case, a boy, even one with the rare true but mild phimosis, does not need to see his glans, nor does his penis need internal cleaning, until adolescence.


WHAT ABOUT THE CONCERN FOR UTI, URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS?

Proponents of circumcision claim that intact boys have a higher incidence of UTI, (Wiswell, 1985-86) but even the absolute incidence is only 1%, one infant in 100, if that. And that 1% can be easily explained by 'septic genital tampering' of which forcible foreskin retraction is a glaring example. In several years of investigating parent complaints of forcible retraction, we have not found even a single case involving a physician wearing surgical gloves -not one. Many parents claimed that the practitioner was not even seen to wash his or her hands beforehand.

Such failures of simple antisepsis, -100,000 or more times each year- easily explain the entire claimed higher incidence of UTI in intact boys.


WHAT IF MY SON'S FORESKIN 'BALLOONS' WHEN HE PEES?

While the errant sprinkles might be annoying, ballooning is harmless and easily explained. Unfortunately, it often leads to poor medical advice to either circumcise or forcibly retract the boy. The inflation of the foreskin by urine is due to a simple fact of flow dynamics -if it is easier for the urine to inflate the partially detached but elastic foreskin than to flow outward, it will flow sideways. Intact boys sometimes pinch their outer opening closed so the urine inflates their foreskin. Because the sensitive nerve receptors of the erogenous foreskin like being stretched, boys no doubt enjoy the sensation, (as well as the reaction they get out of their parents.) This ballooning phase is transient, as eventually the outer opening will be wide enough to allow unimpeded flow, or the boy can be taught to pull his foreskin back gently to encourage the stream outward.


WHY NOT JUST LEAVE THE BOY'S PENIS TO DEVELOP ON ITS OWN?

Why not, indeed! Evolution has apparently provided a useful protection for boys, at a time when they are still developing. Penises, like vulvas, do not need internal cleaning in childhood. The balano-preputial lamina is very much like the female hymen, protecting the child's genitals from feces and other infection or injury at a time when the child does not need to procreate.

It cannot be the case that our primate ancestors bothered to scrub their offspring's genitalia when their time was better spent foraging for food. We are the evolutionary survivors who needed no such intrusive care -or none of us would be here.

A medical historian notes the following about the erroneous and invented English-language urge to scrub the genitals of young males:

"To appreciate the scale of the error, consider its equivalent in women: it would be as if doctors had decided that the intact hymen in infant girls was a congenital defect known as 'imperforate hymen' arising from 'arrested development' and hence needed to be artificially broken in order to allow the interior of the vagina to be washed out regularly to ensure hygiene." (Dr. Robert Darby, A Surgical Temptation, The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2005:235.)


WHAT CAN BE DONE TO DISCOURAGE THIS INJURY?

Our child-hygiene advice to parents is amazingly simple: "Only Clean What is Seen!" The first person to ever retract the boy's foreskin should be the boy himself, as he will stop when it hurts. Our simple advice to medical practitioners may be found on a diaper/nappy sticker we supply parents. It warns, "I'm Intact! Don't Retract!" This prompts an exam-table discussion well worth having in advance of any injury.

The developing penis of a child, like his sister's vulva, is self-cleaning and self-defending, as it has been for tens of thousands of years. In evolutionary terms, it could hardly be otherwise. The most sensible parents are those who instinctively practice 'benign neglect,' largely ignoring their child's penis (and antique medical advice) and who insist that their son's medical providers observe a 'hands-off' policy.

Unfortunately, until this injury is fully abandoned, forever banished by reform from within U.S. medical education, parents will need to be on constant guard. They should NEVER leave their intact child's side during any medical exam. They should simply forbid, in advance, any retraction in unequivocal terms, and compose a signed letter to be inserted in the child's medical chart explaining their wish to protect their son. Parents must remain on guard to any medical professional's request or insistence to "just see the urethra" or any other manipulation of the foreskin.

It may be a pity to admit it -but until today's generation of intact boys grows up to be doctors, the education of medical practitioners must now come from observant parents with good natural instincts.



John V. Geisheker, J.D., LL.M.

George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H.

Mark D. Reiss, M.D.

Morris R. Sorrels, M.D.

of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Seattle

Pediatric consultant: Robert S. Van Howe, M.D., M.S.




POSTS ON CIRCUMCISION

Myths about Infant Circumcision you Likely believe

More Circumcision Myths You May Believe: Hygiene and STDs

Circumcision: Social, Sexual, Psychological Realities

Circumcision Ethics and Economics

What Is the Greatest Danger for an Uncircumcised Boy?

Why Continue to Harm Boys from Ignorance of Male Anatomy?

Pro-Circumcision Culturally Biased, Not Scientific: Experts

Protect (All) Your Boys from Early Trauma

Circumcision’s Psychological Damage



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mo ... harms-boys




References and Resources For This and Previous Post:



Agawal A, Mohta A, Anand RK. Preputial retraction in children. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2005;10(2):89-91.

Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl. 1:34-44.

Harryman, GL, An analysis of the Accuracy of the Presentation of the Human Penis in Anatomical Source Materials, in Flesh and Blood, Perspectives on the Problem of Circumcision in Contemporary Society, eds. Denniston, Hodges, and Milos, Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, NY, 2004.

Ishikawa E, Kawakita M. [Preputial development in Japanese boys]. Hinyokika Kiyo. 2004;50(5):305-8.

Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, et al. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996;156(5):1813-5.

Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968;43:200-3.


NOTES:


‘Gairdner's Error' concerns the erroneous notion, popularized by British paediatrician Douglas Gairdner in 1949, that an intact boy's foreskin should be fully retractable by age 2 to 3.[1] Gairdner was grossly in error, as Europeans and-better educated American physicians know. Modern research, multiple times since 1968, shows that the actual mean age for natural, normal, expected, non-traumatic foreskin retraction is 10+ years, and even late puberty is no indication of pathology.[2]

From Rudolph and Hoffman's Pediatrics:

"The prepuce, foreskin, is normally not retractile at birth. The ventral surface of the foreskin is naturally fused to the glans of the penis. At age 6 years, 80 percent of boys still do not have a fully retractile foreskin. By age 17 years, however, 97 to 99 percent of uncircumcised males have a fully retractile foreskin. Natural separation between the glans and the ventral surface of the foreskin occurs with the secretion of skin oils and desquamation of epithelial cells, smegma. At puberty, the secretions of specialized sebaceous glands, Tyson's glands, assist in completing the separation between the glans and the foreskin; in adulthood they protect and lubricate the glans penis and inner layer foreskin. No treatment is required for the lumps or smegma, and in particular, there is no indication ever for forceful retraction of the foreskin from the glans. Especially in the newborn and infant, this produces small lacerations in addition to a severe abrasion of the glans. The result is scarring and a resultant secondary phimosis. Thus it is incorrect to teach mothers to retract the foreskin." [3]

A recent issue of UROLOGY NEWS[4] describes the correct anatomy:

"...Typically, the prepuce is long with a narrow tip, and the inner surface of the prepuce is fused with the outer surface of the glans so retraction is rarely possible.

...The fused prepuce and glans separate and spontaneous retraction of the foreskin and uncovering of the glans is usually possible by puberty. 'Phmosis' [sic] is often used misleadingly to describe a normal, developmental, non-retractile foreskin, implying pathology, when in reality there is none. More appropriate terms such as 'non-retractile foreskin' should be used in its place."

Roberton's Textbook of Neonatology also warns: "leave it alone and "not to try and retract it":[5]

"All newborn males have "phimosis"; the foreskin is not meant to be retractile at this age, and the parents must be told to leave it alone and not to try and retract it. Forcible retraction in infancy tears the tissues of the tip of the foreskin causing scarring, and is the commonest cause of genuine phimosis later in life."

Avery's Neonatology issues a similar warning of immediate and irrevocable damage[6]:

‘Forcible retraction of the foreskin tends to produce tears in the preputial orifice resulting in scarring that may lead to pathologic [i.e., in this case, iatrogenic, or physician-induced] phimosis."

Similarly, Osborne's Pediatrics warns about permanent damage:

"[phimosis or paraphimosis] is usually secondary to infection or trauma from trying to reduce a tight foreskin..." "circumferential scarring of the foreskin is not a normal condition and will generally not resolve." [7]

Avery's Neonatology also notes the boy's normal and expected preputial membrane may endure, without worry, into late puberty --as it has for many tens of thousands of years. This is not some secret, but an important detail of fundamental gross anatomy understood in the Renaissance and which European-trained physicians know well.

A medical historian writing in 2005 notes the following about the invented and erroneous suggestion of a need for aggressive or intrusive infant male hygiene, and the happy accident that females historically escaped similar treatment:

To appreciate the scale of the error, consider its equivalent in women: it would be as if doctors had decided that the intact hymen in infant girls was a congenital defect known as ‘imperforate hymen' arising from ‘arrested development' and hence needed to be artificially broken in order to allow the interior of the vagina to be washed out regularly to ensure hygiene." (Dr. Robert Darby, A Surgical Temptation, The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2005:235.)

A leading neonatal text, Avery's Neonatology: Pathophysiology and Management of the Newborn, MacDonald (ed) Lippincott, (2005:1088) suggests one reason why these (charitably termed) ‘misdiagnoses' of the male child's natural and normal balano-preputial-lamina occur in English-language medicine:

"Because circumcision is so common in the United States, the natural history of the preputial development has been lost, and one must depend on observations made in countries in which circumcision is usually not practiced."



References For Notes: SHORT WARNINGS ABOUT FORCIBLE FORESKIN RETRACTION


1) The American Academy of Pediatrics:

"Until separation occurs, do NOT try to pull the foreskin back - especially an infant's. Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready may severely harm the penis and cause pain, bleeding, and tears in the skin. "

2.) Pediatrics, a reference text by Rudolph and Hoffman, details the typical timetable for the natural desquamation of the child's balano-preputial lamina, and warns:

"The prepuce, foreskin, is normally not retractile at birth. The ventral surface of the foreskin is naturally fused to the glans of the penis. At age 6 years, 80 percent of boys still do not have a fully retractile foreskin. By age 17 years, however, 97 to 99 percent of uncircumcised males have a fully retractile foreskin... in particular, there is no indication ever for forceful retraction of the foreskin from the glans. Especially in the newborn and infant, this produces small lacerations in addition to a severe abrasion of the glans. The result is scarring and a resultant secondary phimosis. Thus it is incorrect to teach mothers to retract the foreskin."

3.) Roberton's Textbook of Neonatology also warns:

"All newborn males have "phimosis"; the foreskin is not meant to be retractile at this age, and the parents must be told to leave it alone and not to try and retract it. Forcible retraction in infancy tears the tissues of the tip of the foreskin causing scarring, and is the commonest cause of genuine phimosis later in life."

4.) Avery's Neonatology issues a similar warning:

‘Forcible retraction of the foreskin tends to produce tears in the preputial orifice resulting in scarring that may lead to pathologic [i.e., in this case, iatrogenic, or physician-induced] phimosis."

5.) Similarly, Osborne's Pediatrics notes that:

"[phimosis or paraphimosis] is usually secondary to infection or trauma from trying to reduce a tight foreskin..." "circumferential scarring of the foreskin is not a normal condition and will generally not resolve."

6.) Avery's Neonatology: Pathophysiology and Management of the Newborn, MacDonald (ed) Lippincott, (2005:1088):

"Because circumcision is so common in the United States, the natural history of the preputial development has been lost..."

7.) Darby --A medical historian writing in 2005 notes the following about the invented and erroneous suggestion of need for aggressive male infant hygiene:

"To appreciate the scale of the error, consider its equivalent in women: it would be as if doctors had decided that the intact hymen in infant girls was a congenital defect known as ‘imperforate hymen' arising from ‘arrested development' and hence needed to be artificially broken in order to allow the interior of the vagina to be washed out regularly to ensure hygiene." (Dr. Robert Darby, A Surgical Temptation, The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2005:235.)

[1] Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. BMJ 1949; 2: 1433-1437

[2] Phimosis and Paraphimosis, Article Last Updated: Apr 11, 2006, Santos Cantu Jr, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Pediatrics, North Central Baptist Hospital. Avaialable [sic] at: http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic423.htm (link is external)

[3] Rudolph, AM, and Hoffman, MD, Pediatrics, Appleton and Lange, Norwalk CT & Los Altos CA, 1987, Eighteenth Ed., Chap 23.13.1 "Penis" at p1205.

[4] Urology News, Vol 14(6) NOV / DEC 2009

[5] N.R.C. Roberton, "Care of the Normal Term Newborn Baby", in Janet M. Rennie and N.R.C. Roberton (eds) Textbook of Neonatology, 3rd edn., Edinburgh, Churchill Livingston, 1999:378-9.

[6] Avery's Neonatology: Pathophysiology and Management of the Newborn, MacDonald (ed) Lippincott, 2005:1088

[7] Osbourne's Pediatrics, 2005, eds Osborne, DeWitt, First & Zenel, (Elsevier Mosby), at pg 1925.

[8] Urology News, Vol 14(6) NOV / DEC 2009

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:30 pm

In Defense Of Boys


His Body. His Choice.






Why? A simple and important question. Some Young Children repeatedly ask why? This is how they learn about the world around them, and the reason why some things are done and other things are not.

  • Why Must Baby Boys Be Tortured?

    Why am I forced to ask such a bizarre question?

    Why can't the mutilator empathize with the Baby?

    Why don't more people know about the routine Torture of Baby Boys?

    Why do some parents avoid watching the Brutalizing of their Baby Boys?

    Why do most Parents who Mutilate their Baby Boys never bother to research what Male Infant Genital Mutilation entails?

    Why is Terror being visited on Babies in this day and age?


Ask yourself, does it feel right to Torture Babies? Are You Willing To Gamble With Your Baby Boy's Life? Have you researched Genital Mutilation of Boys? Do you know Genital Mutilation of both genders is Not Written In The Quran? Is it possible that our culture is wrong about Mutilating Boys? Do you own your child's body? Shouldn't people (Baby Boys Too) have the Right to their own body? If Genital Mutilation is so good, why is it Forced on children?

Is it ever Okay/Right to Torture a Human Being, let alone a Baby or Young Child? How can such a decision to Mutilate another Human Being be made so easily, and be accepted so widely? Could the Trauma inflicted on the parents compel them to inflict Trauma on their own children? Could this be some kind of Subconscious Misdirected Revenge Scenario? Asking questions is prudent, and Could Save a Person's Life, Physical, Mental, Emotional and Sexual Health, and Protect a Child From a Lifetime of Pain and Misery. Why must a child suffer Excruciating Pain? Are those Torturing children Compos Mentis?

There are some who think that the Mutilation of girls is wrong, but view the Mutilation of boys as A Matter of Course. Why not let the individual decide? Knowledge Is Power. With access to Crucial Information, asking questions and thinking logically, a person can save their child from great misfortune. Common Sense tells us that if a person is not given all the available information regarding the Anatomy and Functions of the Prepuce (Buuryo) and the protection this Integral part of the Penis affords, they might commit a Costly Mistake. It is Nightmarish that our culture views the Torture Of Children As Healthy and Normal. Why must Severe Pain be inflicted on another Human Being? How many people are willing to listen to something that is so obvious? Many will have you believe that there are "benefits" to Mutilating another Human Being's body. Let them Mutilate their own bodies! Oh, Wait... That Is Not How It Works, Is It? If people researched the many Harms of Male Genital Mutilation not only for the individual, but for his spouse, and society as a whole, many people would Protect Their Boys.


Sometimes It Is Very Difficult For People To Accept Something That Has Been A Part Of Their Culture From Time Immemorial Could Be So Horribly Wrong. I Encourage Everyone Who Reads This Post To Research Genital Mutilation Of Baby Boys And Older Boys. PLEASE Do Not Dismiss The Information I Have Presented Out Of Hand (Especially If You Are Responsible For The Welfare And Safety Of A Child).




What Seems More Natural And Logical?



  • The Torture Of A Fragile Baby Or Young Child, And The Theft Of A Piece Of Their Body (Birthright).


    Leave The Child Intact. Do Not Endanger The Child's Life. Do Not Cause Him Unnecessary And Excruciating Pain.
    [/b]

Baby boys Will Struggle when being Tortured/Mutilated. This is very Dangerous as the Glans (Head of the Penis) could be severed. Blood Vessels Will be Severed. This Abomination continues because it is directed against Helpless Children.

The Baby Boy is Healthy and Happy, and Then His Mother and Father Allow Possibly the Most Horrendous Pain a Human Being Might Ever Experience. The Parents thought they were "helping" their baby for whatever Absurd reason.

I Do Not Wish To Upset Parents Or People Who Have Experienced Genital Mutilation. At The Same Time, I Wish To Communicate Crucial Information To Any Expectant Parents Or Anyone For That Matter. People Can Make Decisions For Another Human Being When They Are Better Informed.

With Comprehensive Research done on the Anatomy and Functions of the Male Prepuce (Buuryo), and Sexual Health Comes A Great Responsibility To Protect Boys.

The seeking of information regarding Reproductive Health by Parents (or timely information communicated to them by a person, or that they have read or heard) can ensure the Safety of their Babies and Older Boys.

When people know about the Harms and Adverse Effects of Male Genital Mutilation, they can make informed decisions concerning their boys. Most Somali parents themselves have been Traumatized/Mutilated, and do not know how it Should feel like to make love. That's Right, Close to 100% of Somali Couples Do Not Know How Healthy and Natural Sexual Intercourse (The Way Almighty God Intended) Feels Like!

I believe Violence is Encoded into the Brains of Somali Children as a Result of Being Tortured/Mutilated, and that is why the Torture of Somali children continues. Could this be the Main Reason for the Turmoil in Somalia? I think so.


Did You Know That Babies Can Suffer From Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)? Tortured/Mutilated Baby Boys Exhibit Signs of PTSD.



Childhood Should Have Been The Most Happiest And Carefree Time In A Person's Life.


Babies are Fragile, any Trauma at a young age Will affect the Human Being for the rest of their life. The Baby's Brain and Nervous System is Still Developing and is Very Sensitive. The Excruciating Pain and Terror experienced by Baby Boys not given Full Anesthesia Will Damage their Brain! Allah knows to what extent. It is Reckless and Dangerous to think that the Horrendous and Unimaginable Pain inflicted on a Tiny Creature will not result in Acute Immediate, Lasting and Irreversible Brain Damage (and Damage to other Body Systems as well). Normal Brain Development Will Not Occur as a result of the Excruciating Near Death Pain experienced by the Infant. Also, the Receptors in the brain receiving information from the parts that were ablated will Atrophy. The Baby's Body, Brain and Psyche Will Be Compromised.

Adult Males receive Anesthesia, and Pain Medication before and after Genital Mutilation Surgery, while Most Baby Boys receive No Anesthesia or Pain Medication.

Illogical, Ignorant, Misguided, Negligent, Greedy and Criminal "doctors" will try to rationalize the Crimes that they commit. Ultimately, it is the Parents Who Are To Blame. There was a time, though, when many Newborn Baby Boys in hospitals in the United States were taken from their mothers and Tortured/Mutilated without the "Consent" of the Parents. Many Parents were Horrified To Find Their Baby Boys Mutilated. Some Mothers were given a "consent" form to sign (While Under the Effects of Pain Drugs) and signed not knowing what they were signing. Millions of Newborn Baby Boys were routinely Tortured/Mutilated before they left the hospital! The Parents were Duped into believing that this was common for all boys. Many parents went along without even researching their Rights, and what the Torture/Mutilation of their Babies entailed.

Genital Mutilation is the most common "surgery" performed in the world. The whole business (Male Infant Prepuces Are Sold To Biotech, And Cosmetics Companies) of Mutilating Baby Boys is very Suspicious. Genital Mutilation is an Elective (on the part of the Parents) and Unnecessary Surgery. Most Males in the World Are Not Mutilated.

You have a Healthy Baby Boy with Healthy Genitals being Tortured/Mutilated (Most Baby Boys Feel The Excruciating Pain For 20 Minutes Or More!). Why Endanger the Baby Boy's Life? Why risk having the baby boy become Impotent, or have other Health Problems (Physical, Mental, Emotional, Sexual) later in life? Why must the baby boy be subjected to Torture? Some parents think that they are doing their Baby Boy(s) a favor:

  • He will Not Remember The Pain (So, Torture A Tiny Helpless Human Being Because He Might Not Consciously Remember).


    Some Parents Erroneously Believe That Baby Boys Will Suffer Less Than Older Boys [Older Boys Suffer and can Articulate Their Pain To Their Parents (Parents Should Be Aware That The Pain That The Baby Will Feel Will Be Many Times Greater Than That Of An Older Child!)]

The Terrorizing of baby boys continues as long as the Parents are Unaware of the Horrendous Pain and Terror baby boys experience. Many Absurd reasons have been given for Mutilating another Human Being's body. Shouldn't the Baby Boy be given a chance to decide for himself when he is an adult, and more informed? What would happen if the baby boy or young child was given a choice? This Barbaric Ritual would surely come to a Swift End. Most Adult Males would not suddenly wake up one morning, and decide to cut away the best part of their penis (The Male, Will Know By Now That The Prepuce Is The Most Pleasurable Part Of The Penis).


Genital Mutilation Of Both Genders Continues Because:

  • It is The Parents (Who Should Have Been Protecting Their Children) That Are Forcing Their Children To Undergo This Barbaric Ritual. Most People Out Of Fear Of The Excruciating Pain, And The Risk Of Death Would Not Willingly Allow This To Be Done To Them. Genital Mutilation of Baby Boys Is especially EVIL. NO reason can justify the inflicting of pain on a baby.


    There Is Ignorance Regarding The Functions Of The Parts That Are Mutilated, And Of The Severe Adverse Effects.


    Some Parents are Unaware that Most Baby Boys Are Tortured/Mutilated Without Anesthesia!



Why on earth should be Babies be Tortured? If Pets Were Tortured The Way That Baby Boys Are Tortured In The West, Then The Perpetrators Would Have Been Arrested And Prosecuted.



This Is What It Boils Down To:

  • As a Baby (Your Gender Does Not Matter), Would You Have Appreciated Being Tortured/Mutilated?




Many will tout the "benefits" of Torturing children, but would they have been willing to subject themselves to Torture/Mutilation (as babies or young children if their parents did not force them)? Holding Down Babies and Young Children while Torturing/Mutilating them is one of the most Horrifying Crimes a Parent can commit.



No Medical Association Recommends Routine Infant Circumcision.



What a Cruel Irony where the mother -the primary caretaker and protector of the Baby Boy- delivers him to the Accursed Torturer/Mutilator. To be fair to mothers and fathers, many are not aware that Most Baby Boys Do Not Receive Anesthesia before the Torture/Mutilation.

Some Baby Boys go into Comas and some have Seizures. This Torture/Mutilation is a Crime against God!


Parents, Be Very Cautious Of Anyone Who Would Try To Convince You To Torture/Mutilate Your Own Children (Especially Babies). Allah Did Not Command For Children To Be Tortured/Mutilated! It is High Time that this Backward and Barbaric Ritual was done away with!

Let no person take away what God Has Bestowed Upon Children. Mutilating The Genitals Of Baby Boys Could Cause Them To Be Unable To Have Children Later In Life!

Many Baby Boys Have Bled to Death (what do they expect when they cut Blood Vessels?).

I encourage all who might be reading these words to PLEASE Think Long and Hard, and do Comprehensive Research when considering Mutilating your Baby Boys. Remember, it is You who will put the baby boy's life in Danger, it is You who will cause him Unimaginable Agony. What will you answer if you are ever questioned about this Gross Injustice?

PLEASE Tell Your Relatives, Friends, Colleagues, And Any Expectant Mother You Might Happen To See. A Lot Of People Might Appreciate Being Informed Of The Suffering Baby Boys Routinely Go Through.



PLEASE Protect Your Boys!




May God Save The Children. Aamiin.

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:44 pm

Questions Don't Hurt. Ignorance Does!

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:05 am

Life Should Be Fun For All Children.

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:20 pm

Happiness.

User avatar
zulaika
SomaliNet Super
SomaliNet Super
Posts: 9569
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:00 pm
Location: more money...more problems solved!!

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby zulaika » Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:42 pm

Dear love&light,

Do you feel this campaign of yours is reaping any success or falling on deaf ears?

Your point is made, repetitively....so I would hope you assess it's affect.

Is it well received, mildly debated, or heck...even strongly opposed? I see none of this in your thread yet u continue to post more material.

So why don't you share some personal experience. Since you promote this, I would imagine you'll probably apply to your children. Do you have kids? Boys? are they running around free willy? Etc. perhaps you can personalize it and maybe your point might ignite some discourse. It's getting too repetitive posting the same marital over and over again.

I'll throw my opinion into this and say that thank you for all your informative details with baby boy circumcision...but still I will choose this for my son when he is born inshallah.

Peace!

User avatar
gegiroor
SomaliNet Super
SomaliNet Super
Posts: 6438
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:57 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby gegiroor » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:04 pm

Dear love&light,

Do you feel this campaign of yours is reaping any success or falling on deaf ears?

Your point is made, repetitively....so I would hope you assess it's affect.

Is it well received, mildly debated, or heck...even strongly opposed? I see none of this in your thread yet u continue to post more material.

So why don't you share some personal experience. Since you promote this, I would imagine you'll probably apply to your children. Do you have kids? Boys? are they running around free willy? Etc. perhaps you can personalize it and maybe your point might ignite some discourse. It's getting too repetitive posting the same marital over and over again.

I'll throw my opinion into this and say that thank you for all your informative details with baby boy circumcision...but still I will choose this for my son when he is born inshallah.

Peace!
:up:

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:56 am

Dear love&light,

Do you feel this campaign of yours is reaping any success or falling on deaf ears?

Your point is made, repetitively....so I would hope you assess it's affect.

Is it well received, mildly debated, or heck...even strongly opposed? I see none of this in your thread yet u continue to post more material.

So why don't you share some personal experience. Since you promote this, I would imagine you'll probably apply to your children. Do you have kids? Boys? are they running around free willy? Etc. perhaps you can personalize it and maybe your point might ignite some discourse. It's getting too repetitive posting the same marital over and over again.

I'll throw my opinion into this and say that thank you for all your informative details with baby boy circumcision...but still I will choose this for my son when he is born inshallah.

Peace!



Salaam, zulaika.



Please reconsider. A long response, which I have been working on for quite some time, is to follow, insha Allah. ...

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:16 pm

... Someday soon, I hope.

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:29 pm

PLEASE Protect Your Baby Boys From a Calamity That is Worse Than Death!!!

LoveandLight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
SomaliNet Heavyweight
Posts: 3867
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:07 pm

Re: Infant Genital Mutilation

Postby LoveandLight » Sat Jan 30, 2016 2:41 pm

You Have Been WARNED!!!


OUR SPONSOR: LOGIN TO HIDE

Hello, Has your question been answered on this page? We hope yes. If not, you can start a new thread and post your question(s). It is free to join. You can also search our over a million pages (just scroll up and use our site-wide search box) or browse the forums.

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Women - General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest