What is female circumcision? What are the psychological effects on the female?

Female circumcision is an operation in which the cutting or removal of part or all of the external parts of the reproductive system of women, which is a traditional practice and can be so harmful to mental health and physical health.

 The World Health Organization classifies genital mutilation of women is that in all actions for the partial or total removal of the external genitalia of women or other injuries to these organs for cultural or non-therapeutic, it is rejected. Because this habit certainly affect the health of general and private women’s sexual health. It also affects the reproductive health of women.

Health effects:
Of course, the girls are circumcised at an early age, a child exposed to the worst method of torture which will affect the girls psychological health. And that’s because the circumcision actually is amputation, which includes pain and bleeding that accompanies the process, and there are countries around the world does this kind of surgery without even giving the girl or woman any kind of anesthetic or drugs. This process affects in the short-term and long term on the psychology of the child and her health in general, infections in the wounded area may occur after the process, which will also lead to the difficulty of urination and can lead to acute and chronicall infections. And if the tools used at that process was not sterilized well it may cause AIDS infection.
The damage in the long run are multiple and painful. May be adversely affected at marriage, for example, it may cause pain accompanying the process of sexual activity between spouses. And it Doubles the pain during childbirth.

The psychological impact is deeper and may be without any treatment, they feel that they are less than the rest of the females. 

 The laws of the Medical Council and the international conventions states that the circumcision is a  practice of genital mutilation a violation of basic human rights of women and the girls and violates of human rights.

 Why do we still hear a lot of female genital mutilation around the world?

Traditions? Male preference than female in some civilizations? Ignorance  ? NOT acceptable and must stop worldwide and immediately.

Do you know who invented this process of female circumcision??
Pharaohs.

MIGHTY GOD,
Do I have to continue doing what began 5000 years ago and are still going on despite that its really harmful and do I have to disregard the existence of serious damage to the victims of this process. IT’S WRONG.

MAKE SEX amorous beneath penis

U.S. association was heavily debated accomplish circumcision on the penis boys. Regardless of the debate, abounding women who in actuality accept that sex with a penis that is circumcised, the action of the bed so it is added exciting.

To reinforce that opinion, a abstraction has been conducted on 50 women who accept sex with men and who accept not been circumcised. The aftereffect was absolutely surprising!

Many women who claimed that agony to the penis is not circumcised. Their affidavit are actual simple, dirty. In fact, beneath penis does not usually that appears to smell beneath affable in the end. However, if the assimilation of women do not feel a apparent aberration amid the penis which is beneath or not, but still they are afflictive with that fact.

In affairs of shape, they are aswell added aflame if he saw who was beneath penis. While the penis is not circumcised, even women see it as ‘new-born puppy’.

Although the numbers do the circumcision in the United States accept increased, mothers still accept problems chief on their son. Still, abounding women adopt men who are accomplishing circumcision. They aswell added, which had been beneath penis is added sensual, that of taste, aroma, beheld as well.

According to David Lewis of the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, circumcision is the prevention of simple, inexpensive, takes only 20 minutes and is done once in a lifetime.

Even in trials in 2006 in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa, proving that the risk of HIV transmission can be reduced by half. Long-term research shows circumcision has benefits even greater than is known. The experts said the benefits of circumcision as a “vaccine through the operation” because it has a preventive effect of an effective and inexpensive.

Therefore, today’s experts continue campaigning for the importance of circumcision in men from the countries of sub-Saharan Africa that became “home” for a third of the 33 million people living with HIV / AIDS in the world. An estimated 175,000 circumcision procedure has been performed in over 13 countries which is a priority country under the World Agency for AIDS Prevention in mid-2010.

Recent studies conducted between 2007 and 2010 in the provincial city of Orange Farm, which has done 20,000 procedures sirkumisisi especially in the age group 15-24 years which is the most sexually active group.

In the international AIDS forum held in Rome, Italy, this week, experts presented the latest scientific evidence are three benefits of circumcision to prevent HIV infection. The benefits of circumcision are as follows:

1. Feel more sexually aroused. Circumcised men claim they are more sexually aroused. This was revealed in a study of 316 men, average age 22 years who underwent circumcision procedure between February and September 2009. A year after the operation, 220 men said they were sexually active and a quarter to use a condom during sex. Approximately 87.7% said there was no difficulty in achieving orgasm after circumcision and 92.3% admitted more excited.
2. Can still perform safe sex. Newly circumcised men feel they are no different from men who are not circumcised in practicing safe sex. The conclusion was the result of interviews with 2207 men in Kenya, six months postoperatively. It is said that experts fear that circumcised men will refuse to protect themselves from HIV infection.

However, according to Nobel laureate in 2008, Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, who discovered HIV as the cause of AIDS, excessive confidence in men who are circumcised have to worry about. Since no one can guarantee protection to 100%, even though the vaccine. Stop thinking of the protection is sufficient. Circumcision procedure is part of efforts to protect themselves as well as condom use, added Francoise.

Protective benefits of circumcision are not found in women who have sex with men infected with HIV. The same is also true in homosexual men who have sex with people with HIV AIDS.

Religion Isn’t Like A Nose Job

This altercation may complete acceptable on the surface, but if we appraise it added closely, we can see that it proves too much. What about situations area anaplasty is appropriate to save an infant’s life? Should such operations be banned because “it’s the infant’s body” and no one has the appropriate to access it? I anticipate a lot of humans would say no.

But this, I’m abiding Schofield would respond, doesn’t attenuate the ban, because circumcision is never (as far as I know) bare to save babies’ lives. Instead, he has said, it’s added like “cosmetic surgery.” No one should be affected to get a facelift, the altercation goes, and the aforementioned acceptance applies here.

In added words, if we ameliorate the account for the circumcision ban a bit, we can see that it’s based on an abstraction adverse to religion: that religious practices are just as barmy and accidental as corrective surgery.

If we wish to accept an honest agitation about this law, I anticipate we charge to accede that it’s based on anti-religious assumptions of the array we generally see in the writings of “New Atheists” like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, and ask the ban’s proponents to absolve those assumptions.

The False “Religion Vs. Morality” Distinction

But there’s a deeper, and added problematic, acceptance abaft the ban — the angle that the ban is justified by moral attempt that are abstracted from, and above to, religious beliefs. “People can convenance whatever adoration they want, but your religious convenance ends with anyone else’s body,” says Schofield.

Again, this sounds acceptable at first, but let’s yield a afterpiece look. Area do the ban’s defenders get the moral aphorism that “your religious convenance ends with anyone else’s body?”

Did they apprentice this through accurate observation? No. As philosophers accept generally acicular out, moral attempt are altered from laws of attributes like the law of force — we can’t apprentice what’s appropriate and amiss by administering experiments.

Some ability altercate that Schofield is cogent moral ethics a lot of humans share. However, even bold a lot of humans buy the acceptance that “your religious convenance ends with anyone else’s body,” that doesn’t accomplish the acceptance true. To use a age-old argumentum ad Hitlerum, a majority of the German humans may accept accurate Hitler’s acceleration to power, but I anticipate you’d accede that doesn’t beggarly it was a acceptable thing.

Does male circumcision make sex more pleasurable for both the guy and the girl?

The extra lubricating functions a foreskin provides are not present in men without a foreskin. However this can be remedied with the addition of a lubricant. If anything, the men I have encountered who underwent circumcision at a later age (not at birth or as a toddler) reported heightened sensitivity which causes early ejaculation for them.

Pleasurable sex is a lot more complex than just what kind of penis you have, and have little to do with anyone’s genitalia. We all experience the sensations of sexual activities differently. Circumcised men can enjoy sex just as much as those who are uncircumcised. Understanding and being comfortable with your penis, regardless of whether circumcised , is the first step to realising do what feels good with it in.

The rabbi replied: “I don’t charge. But I get a ton in tips!”

Ba-da-Bang!

On that note, anyone who may already be offended should immediate vacate the premises. It probably won’t get any better from here!

Sooo, to be circumcised or not to be circumcised? That has always been the real question.

While serious and valid arguments exist on both sides to support the pros and the cons of circumcision – we’re not going to be overly concerned with those today.

With important issues ranging from religious beliefs, safety concerns, or simply wanting sonny boy to look like Big Daddy – it seems that the overwhelming primary concern for the majority of grown men is whether the majority of grown women find their Man-some to be han-some.

Period!

Location is non-negotiable. It’s the curb appeal they’re worried about now.

Would she enjoy a wall around the property, or – would she prefer a clearer view of the, um, bushes?

Does she prefer to unwrap her gifts slowly, or  – does she require more (god help me) immediate gratification?

Apparently, circumcision, ahem, cuts both ways: At face value, the fact that uncut men have up to 40% more sensitivity should definitely be a big check mark in the plus column. But, this fact becomes far less (forgive me here) stimulating, and far more deflating when factoring in that the uncircumcised man may get 50% less sex that their un-encumbered competitors.

According to statistics, women like a good, um, head-cut!

While remaining au naturale protects from nasty desensitizing friction – the above mentioned factoids definitely rub the wrong way. (sigh)

Seven out of ten women surveyed preferred it long (and) gone. For a variety of reasons – many too graphic to print here. Many too graphic to print anywhere.

One dare not ask how it reflects upon a society when it can be shocked and/or frightened when confronted with what is a natural appendage – as god intended. Born that way.

When the health risks it may or may not impose are virtually ignored for aesthetic value. While both sides work long and hard (I’m so sorry) and spend millions of dollars in research to support and sustain their respective positions – average (and above and below average) men across the globe are simply wishing that they could have had some small input years ago on D-day. Or, shall we call it C-day? 

Team pro-uncut would have us believe that you are safer from AIDS if left intact.

Team pro-snip maintains it not only protects from possible painful sex but also saves valuable time and energy by being able to take it through the ‘express wash’ as opposed to needing to have it ‘detailed’.

The debate rages on about whether circumcision leaves lifelong scars on the psyche of the infant just recently forced into the cold chaos of a harsh, cruel world – and who is then almost immediately strapped down to a table to have the tip of his johnson junior snipped off as if it were nothing more than the wrong end of a cheap cigar.

Not that it matters in the scheme of things.

Irrelevant!

The only thing relevant to one sex is whether they are desirable to the other. It is instinctual. Proliferation of the species, and such.

Basic. Natural and only normal.

Everything else is just a lot of white noise.

In closing I’d like to remind you of the most historic circumcision of all time: That of Captain James Cook, who  circumcised the entire world in a 70 foot cutter.

Ouch!

PS..The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by the author. They have simply been expressed factually and without any bias whatsoever.

That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!

You May Also Enjoy….

• Woman-uals: What Man-uals Would be Called If Women Were Meant to Read Them!
• News Flash: Foreplay is NOT a Golf Term!
• Steroids are to Athletes as Sex is to Priests
• Hangover Cures That Will Make Your Head Spin!

The results of three studies in Africa have shown a decrease of more than half the risk of transmission of AIDS from women to men uncircumcised, the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS have decided to add circumcision to preventive measures. But the message to promote is not easy and was eventually widely seen as a panacea and only against AIDS. The National AIDS Council (NSC) warns against the risks and possible abuses around the promotion of circumcision as a weapon against AIDS.

Risks and excesses of circumcision

Circumcision should be promoted if it is done in a sanitary condition? which is not always the case.
Circumcision does not completely protect the people of the risk of transmission of the AIDS virus. It only reduces risk, so that other preventive measures are essential: condoms, faithfulness, abstinence? Or circumcised men may have less condom use.

ues and derivatives of circumcision

Circumcision does not reduce directly the risk of contamination in women. What about sex between men, the scientific data are missing.
Newly circumcised men may tend to increase the frequency of their reports, as has been observed in Uganda, Rakai.
Circumcision is not desirable for men already infected. Screening should be offered before, with the risk of mandatory testing, discrimination?
A policy of circumcision may be at the expense of access to treatment, as less expensive, not to mention the lack of medical personnel in developing countries, particularly in Africa where more than 25 million people are HIV positive.
And finally, promotion of circumcision is intended only for countries where the infection rate is very high and where condom use is very limited. The CNS is very clear that this method does not apply to countries such as France or the United States! Only the condom protects the AIDS virus!

Circumcision has been under attack. So-called “intactivists” who believe that males – from infants to adults – have a human right to retain their foreskin have been campaigning against the procedure. They supported an initiative in San Francisco that would have banned circumcision in that city, though a judge tossed it off the ballot before election day. They have also helped persuade 18 states to stop paying for circumcisions under their Medicaid health insurance programs.

Under these conditions, who will stand up and defend the once-routine procedure? Two physicians from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, that’s who.

“If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60%,genital herpes risk by 30%, and HR-HPV [high-risk human papillomavirus] by 35%, the medical community would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention,” Drs. Aaron Tobian and Ronald Gray write in Wednesday’s edition of the Journal of the American Medical Assn. Those are just some of the proven benefits of circumcision, and if parents would like their sons to have them, “it would be ethically questionable to deprive them of this choice,” they write.

In their commentary, Tobian and Gray recount the evidence in favor of male circumcision, much of it gathered in the last five years:

• A trio of randomized trials in Africa have shown that men who are circumcised reduce their risk of acquiring HIV by 51% to 60% compared with men who are not.
• Two other trials have shown that the risk of acquiring genital herpes is 28% to 34% lower in men who are circumcised.
• Trials have found that male circumcision reduces the risk of genital ulceration by 47%.
• Men who are circumcised are 32% to 35% less likely to contract the HPV virus, which causes cancer.

The doctors also point out that women benefit when their partners are circumcised. Studies have found that the risk of HPV is 28% lower, the risk of bacterial vaginosis is 40% lower, and the risk of trichomoniasis is 48% lower for women whose sexual partners lack foreskin.

These are all good reasons for males to be circumcised – and the earlier they have the procedure, the better, Tobian and Gray write.

If circumcision could be performed only once boys became consenting adults at the age of 18, they would miss out on several years of protection against sexually transmitted diseases. (Tobian and Gray say that half of American high schoolers start having sex before they turn 18.)

In addition, the procedure is much safer for infants than for adults. Tobian and Gray write that the complication rate for newborns is in the range of 0.2% to 0.6%, but in clinical trials, the complication rate for men was in the 1.5%-to-3.8% range.

Parents routinely make health decisions on behalf of their children and give consent for measures that will protect their health, the doctors write. They decide to have their children vaccinated, and if they become sick and need surgery they give the OK for that too. Circumcision, they say, should be no different.

“Among men circumcised, HIV prevalence is below 55%, and the incidence of HIV is 76% lower,” said the ANRS. For Professor Bertrand Auvert, lead author of this work, “this study shows that circumcision reduces the spread of HIV infection in communities heavily infected.” Moreover, these results are similar to those observed in other trials.

“This study marks an important step confirming the randomized clinical trials, but this time across a community, in real life,” said Professor Jean-François Delfraissy, Director of the ANRS. “Male circumcision can protect men partially but strongly HIV.” Note that widespread circumcision continues in Orange Farm.

In the slums of South Africa, a free and medicalized circumcision was offered to male volunteers over 15 years: 20,000 of them have accepted it. Their follow-up from 2007 to 2010 and compared over the same period, with men not circumcised in the same slum is clear: a total of some 100,000 men, a decline in HIV-infected of 76% is fine and many found in circumcised men! The study does not say whether their partners are also beneficiaries, but fewer men infected and this makes sense …

A study “size”!

This is not the first time that studies show the benefit of circumcision, but it’s the first time it checked in the field, with an equally large study. Results do have a range greater than! It remains to encourage those most at risk, to accept circumcision: a good in Orange Farm, the slum where the study took place and where the spread of this small intervention, continues …