Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive 2

Comment
I have some issues with a structure that equates Female genital cutting with circumcision and "designer vaginas". If you visit Female genital cutting you can review a number of sources that explain the reasoning behind 30 year trend of extricating FGC from the non-analogous and euphemistic language of circumcision. Equating FGC with cosmetic surgery trivializes the cultural significance of such rituals. However, because FGC is cultural, there are some sound arguments for giving it its own category distinctly separate from circumcision and "designer vaginas", as long as it is given a NPOV treatment covering cultural and medicalization aspects. Also, the consensus on the FGC page is to use "FGC" and try and avoid "mutilation" and "circumcision" per cited sources. As FGC is the main page (for FGC), language on this page should reflect that. Phyesalis (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. The present structure (and indeed the article) is a bit of a mess. What structure would you propose? Jakew (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Kind of a mess" is exactly the phrase that went through my head. See below.  Photouploaded (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment indicating that the consensus on the FGC page is to use "FGC" and try and avoid "mutilation" and "circumcision" per cited sources is completely untrue. There is no such consensus.
 * The many recent changes to this article, removing information on types of female genital modification, and removing the table of procedures, seem to serve a POV purpose, expressed by Phyesalis' POV above that one cannot "equate" FGC and cosmetic surgery. Is there a reason for these changes that serves the neutral point of view?  Blackworm (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed structure changes
I'm just going to separate this thread. I see this as a parent page for all these subjects, ja? So, I would separate aesthetic/individual choices of modifications (btw - no piercing or penile bifurcation?) from cultural(FGC), from circumcision (or religious/health - not offering an opinion, just sticking with the two dominant frames of ref.) and from sexual reassignment surgery (lumping this in with aesthetic may be seen as trivializing it, too). So, I see 4 distinct categories. I don't have any firm ideas on ordering these, except maybe to put them in order of section length (makes for an easier read). Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, historically the "reason" for this page was to have a page called "genital mutilation" (the original name) and then to express the viewpoint that circumcision was a form of this. An attempt was made to make the title conform to NPOV, and the content really just grew from there. I don't personally see it as a 'parent article' - rather, it's an attempt to group a bunch of procedures as seen from the viewpoint that they are all modifications/mutilations of the genitals.
 * I think that imposing structure or narrative tends to inherently advance a POV, and would therefore suggest a simple, flat structure. I would be inclined to restructure the page as either a) a list, or b) a category. Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it (and saw that there is indeed piercing and bisection - ack!). Either would be an improvement. Making it a category seems to mitigate all sorts of issues. But if we do a list, I would support maintaining the order/organization of(A or B)male and (A or B)female and (C) sexual reassignment. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in total agreement with the idea of moving towards a list/category structure. The previous version was really a mess.  The lede was badly written, the structuring of "male circumcision" / "female circumcision" / "female genital modification surgery" didn't make sense (seeing as those aren't the main categories), and then the table was filled with redirect links, and organized badly (genital tattooing was listed under "additions to tissue", alongside phalloplasty).  I removed all the redirects and left only the individual articles.  I also removed the bloated EL section.  Let me know what you think, whether this can stay this way, where we ought to take it from here.  Photouploaded (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bravo! I think that's a huge improvement. Jakew (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's strange to see Jakew calling the addition of unsourced, uncited, POV material a "huge improvement" considering his long history of guarding all circumcision-related articles against (some) such policy violations. Is this stuff going to be sourced soon, Photouploaded?  I remind you of WP:V.  Blackworm (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck out the above, as I was referring to changes Photouploaded made after Jakew's comment, as Jakew kindly pointed out on my talk page. I apologize to Jakew for my confusion and rude comment.  Blackworm (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This article seems entirely superfluous to requirements, as almost all of the material covered in it is also covered in the main articles for each topic. I propose that this page be replaced with a redirect page of the 'Genital modification and mutilation may refer to:' variety, and any unique content being merged into the appropriate article. Bagofants (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Newly expanded rewrite
I have now expanded the list version, which I created, into an actual, written article. I welcome feedback. Photouploaded (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well-done. Your efforts have brought about a more concise and neutral article. I thought you did a great job on the headers and and the wording of the "sex assignment" section. Phyesalis (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your removal of female genital cosmetic surgeries is unexplained, as they are clearly "genital modification" and fall directly within the scope of this article. Blackworm (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The section was lost in the transition. First I distilled the article into a list of articles.  I was going to leave it at that, but then I realized that I was comfortable expanding the article, so I did so.  I did so, starting from the list of articles.  Vaginoplasty was included in the new version, but only in regards to sex reassignment surgery.  I simply forgot the other form of vaginoplasty as all I was looking at was the list.  To correct this error, I have created a small section in regards to elective plastic surgery on the vulva.  Photouploaded (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive POV
After reading this article, it seems to me that the text within sections "Involuntary sex assignment" and "Female genitals" is very POV. Likewise, the list within "See also" may be biased, considering which articles are mentioned. I don't have the time right now but I may elaborate on this later. What does everyone else think? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it a POV issue, or more of a need for some choice rewording for clarity? I think the phrase "it may not be clear whether the child is female or male" could be reworded, maybe "botched" could be changed-the Reimer article states he "was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was inadvertently destroyed during circumcision." Is that better? As for Female genitals, I think the "forced" is a bit strong. Were there other issues you saw that I haven't mentioned? Phyesalis (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I removed the see also links - they were a bit odd. Any issues? Phyesalis (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to list
Thank you, Photouploaded, for your efforts to improve the article. Perhaps we might want to consider going back to the list format that you put together here? What do you all think? Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? I put at least an hour of work into creating the article.  Can't we balance the POV concerns?  Photouploaded (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Phyesalis. Photouploaded, despite your good efforts to improve the article, I think that for the time being going back to the list format is preferable.  Editors seem to disagree on the scope of the topic, and the entire article text is currently unsourced (see WP:V).  Beginning with a list format would allow for slow, steady progress from a reasonably clean slate, citing reliable sources along the way, should editors see a need to expand on the topic.  Blackworm (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I agree with Phyesalis and Blackworm. I'm not for a moment suggesting that the work you've done in converting it to prose is bad, but I think that a list format is simply more suitable than an article format. As a list, it is essentially just a guide to navigating through the encyclopaedia. Jakew (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that reverting to a list is hasty. I was hoping that people would be interested to help find sources, provide feedback and contrasting opinions, and pull it towards NPOV.  Why is everyone so quick to provide negative opinions?  Why not help improve the article?  I never said that I could create a perfect article all on my own.  I was hoping people would come together and work on it.  Instead all I'm hearing is that we should can it entirely.  Very disappointing response, I must say.  Photouploaded (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone expects you to write a perfect article, Photouploaded, and in fact given the subject matter I think your efforts are impressive. The problem lies in the task of writing an article about "genital modification and mutilation", not in your work.
 * The first problem with writing about "genital modification and mutilation" is that the phrase itself appears to be completely unused in reliable sources (Google Scholar returns 0 hits for the phrase), making sourcing inherently problematic, and suggesting that any content is likely to be original research.
 * The article appears to be a synthesis of two topics: an attempt to enumerate procedures which alter the genitals, and the fact that some people view some of these procedures as mutilation. This itself has OR issues, but also introduces two other problems. First, there is a lack of focus: it is like trying to write an article about "rock bands of the 1980s and rock bands that some people dislike". How can you write clearly about such a subject? Moreover, how can anyone make sense of the content? Second, an article about both a set of procedures and a single viewpoint about those procedures is almost certain to become a POV fork, even if that isn't intentional.
 * Some of these problems could perhaps be addressed by renaming the article to "genital modification", "genital alteration", or "procedures affecting the genitals". But if we were to do this, what would such an article offer that isn't achieved through a simple category? Do we need to have articles about procedures affecting other specific body parts, too? Jakew (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The clear answer is that there would finally be a relevant place for to read about [-BW] all the scholarship comparing various modifications and mutilations of the genitals across cultures and across the sexes, including issues of risk, harm, consent, ethnocentricity of views, and gender bias.
 * I believe you should also disclose, Jakew, your efforts to have this article deleted from Wikipedia. [Irrelevant. -BW] Blackworm (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As presented, this seems to be a writer-oriented argument (to loosely paraphrase, "I'd like to write about X, so let's have an place in which I can do so"). Would you mind reframing it in terms of the reader? How would (s)he benefit from the existence of such an article? Jakew (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see how the above carried any notions of being writer- rather than reader-oriented, but I've used strikeout to recast my response at your request. Blackworm (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clarifying. To adapt my earlier analogy, this seems like "rock bands of the 1980s, rock bands that some people dislike, and comparisons between some of these rock bands". If, as you suggest, the reader wants to learn about the comparisons, then this seems an indirect and somewhat messy structure. Do you have any thoughts about other possible approaches? Jakew (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Language links
For your information : the Finnish link is only about female sexual mutilations. This Finish article is already linked to Female genital cutting Regards--Overkilled (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Expansion and NPOV
I expanded the male genitals section to include penile subincision. I also added that male circumcision is sometimes referred to as male genital mutilation. The term "male genital mutilation" is used in both legal and scientific journal articles and in the media.

It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to point out that female genital cutting is sometimes called female genital mutilation without pointing out that male circumcision is sometimes called male genital mutilation. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The section specifically refers to male circumcision. To say it is "also known as male genital mutilitation" is incorrect - it is referred to by that description as a pejorative, and is not a common usage term. Female genital cutting, on the other hand, is often and nearly always referred to as mutilation. The terms are frequently interchangeable, with the same meaning implied. They are not equivalent, and the phrasing that is NPOV in one instance is not neutral in the other. Avruch  T 23:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is correct because many reliable sources use male genital mutilation to refer to male circumcision. Are you arguing that female genital mutilation is not a pejorative? As far as I know, most proponents of the practice call it female circumcision. Most opponents, who view it pejoratively, call it female genital mutilation. It would be fair to point out that the term female genital mutilation is more commonly used than the term male genital mutilation, but to completely leave out the term male genital mutilation would imply that it is never used or used only by fringe sources. That would be dishonest at best. I'm not trying to argue that either term (FGM or MGM) is neutral. I'm arguing that to leave out the term MGM and to include the term FGM is not neutral. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Its worth it to note that the male circumcision article, to which the note on this page is merely an introduction, does not use the phrase "male genital mutilation" in its own (very long) introduction. My feeling is that the prevalence of the word "mutilation" in reference to male circumcision is much, much lower than similar references to female circumcision. The point is that including the phrase in one instance is not equivalent to including it in the other - in one its an accepted and normal usage in most sources, and in the other it is not. One way to look at it is this: how often do you see male genital mutilation used descriptively to refer to male circumcision where the subject of the piece is something other than how male circumcision is wrong? Avruch  T 00:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that articles on FGM and MGM should have neutral titles (e.g. Female/Male genital cutting/modification rather than Female/Male circumcision or Female/Male genital mutilation) and should have neutral sections on the range of terms used by proponents and opponents. If you feel that way, it would be fair to point out that MGM is used less frequently than FGM. I'm beginning to see the term MGM appear in neutral articles from neutral sources (such as the Economist article that I linked). I think that MGM is coming into common usage just as FGM has largely replaced "female circumcision" over the last few decades. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the compromise wording is fine. Avruch  T 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Should it be mentioned that female circumcision is an archaic term? JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think archaic is totally accurate, although the term certainly isn't very common at the moment.Avruch  T 01:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Avruch, this seemingly open debate of appropriate weight to differing terminology exists here and at Talk:circumcision and related articles.  I generally agree with JCDenton2052 about "male genital mutilation," and the word "mutilation"'s absence from the circumcision article is, it seems, an oversight related to the debate there.  It occurs in sources: [http: //www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx]      Further, female circumcision is still a common term, and current dictionaries  and other sources view circumcision as something done to members of either gender (or both genders, or all).  As an example of the dispute, some believe the circumcision article should be called male circumcision as a circumstance of the ambiguity combined with inappropriate weight (neutrality), and the seemingly current use in international and professional fora of the disambiguating "male circumcision."     Blackworm (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some concerns about the "compromise" edit. While I agree that the sentence is technically verifiable, the problem with it is that it gives undue weight to a neologism that is not widely used. (Unfortunately the wording "some academics" contributes to this problem further, as it gives the reader no clues as to whether "some" means three academics and a dog or whether it means that the term is in widespread usage.)
 * Let's look at some numbers. Using Google Scholar, I find 324 hits for "male genital mutilation" and 51 hits for "male genital cutting". To put that in perspective, there are 56,500 for circumcision (of which 6,100 contain the exact phrase "male circumcision"). Clearly, neither of the first two terms are widely used in academic writing, and when compared with "circumcision" or "male circumcision" it is clear that for every author using one of the first two terms, an awful lot of authors do not.
 * The question is, is the fact that a (relatively) small number of authors use these terms significant enough or notable enough to belong in this article? It's important to bear in mind that NPOV contemplates the inclusion of significant viewpoints in proportion to prominence; giving excessive weight to extreme minority viewpoints (whether explicit or expressed through promotion of novel terminology) in effect causes WP to act as a soapbox for that viewpoint rather than a neutral encyclopaedia. Jakew (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still maintain that it's a violation of WP:NPOV to give the terms for female genital modification used by supporters (female circumcision) and by opponents (female genital mutilation) without giving the terms for male genital modification used by supporters (circumcision or male circumcision) and by opponents (male genital mutilation). On top of that, excluding the term male genital mutilation completely ignores the anti-male genital modification movement, which is not an extreme minority viewpoint. Finally, male genital mutilation is coming into use among neutral, non-academic sources (such as the Economist article that I linked). JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are several problems with your argument, JCDenton2052.
 * The first problem is a weak division of terms into "supporters' terms" and "opponents' terms". Sadly this division isn't remotely accurate: while it is doubtless true that the term "X mutilation" is used by opponents of both procedures, the term "X circumcision" seems to be used by both those in favour and those opposed (eg. ). But even if the split were accurate, it would be somewhat strange to insist on pairs of terms for every procedure. In many cases, perhaps most cases, there is a single, easily-recognised, common term. In the case of FGC, however, it seems to be the case that there are in fact several widely-used terms. To illustrate that, consider some more searches. For consistency with my earlier searches, I'll use Google Scholar with no restrictions on publication date. The results are: "female circumcision" 8870, "female genital mutilation" 10,400, "female genital cutting" 3,210.
 * The second problem seems to be an underlying assumption (unstated) that NPOV requires that topics should be treated equally, even when the facts about them differ. That's not the case. Given two topics, NPOV requires equal treatment of them only if they are treated equally in the literature. A well-intentioned attempt to impose "fairness" on the topic can, in fact, result in distorted and non-neutral coverage. In this particular case, while the term "female genital mutilation" is already in widespread use, that is not true of "male genital mutilation", and implying that terminology used for FGC and circumcision is symmetrical would be misleading to the reader.
 * I'm afraid I can't make sense of your argument that the term is needed in order not to ignore the anti-circumcision viewpoint. It is difficult to understand how this viewpoint could be ignored when the section already includes a sentence which explicitly discusses it: "The bioethics of neonatal circumcision are a subject of intense debate, with circumcision advocates promoting it as beneficial, and supporters of genital integrity opposing it as harmful and/or a violation of the individual's human rights." (emph added).
 * Finally, both the Economist and ScienceDaily articles you linked seem to be unusual. In Google's News archives, I found a grand total of three hits for "male genital cutting" and 86 for "male genital mutilation" (many of which seem to be letters rather than full articles), compared with 1990 for "male circumcision" and 22,100 for circumcision. Whether the term is becoming more common is of course unknown, and in any event does not affect us: our role is to reflect current usage in sources, not to anticipate trends. I would also point out that in both articles, the text discusses work by another author who uses the term "male genital mutilation", and the term is thus partly attributed to the original author ("...he suggests that male-genital mutilations are actually intended..." "...Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure, he adds..."). Jakew (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, you should consider not using "RVV" to revert good faith edits that disagree with your attempt at WP:BRD. You may not like it, but it is emphatically not vandalism to revert you. Avruch  T 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Avruch, your argument that male genital mutilation "is referred to by that description as a pejorative," may be correct, but the same is true of female genital mutilation, and yet the doesn't stop us from using that terminology, even to refer to the mildest pinprick of female genitals, or even procedures that involve no cutting nor deformation of genitals. That objection is thus, void.  On your other objection, that it "is not a common usage term," that is debatable, and the mere fact that it is debatable makes the objection irrelevant -- its minority usage may easily be presented and/or explained to the reader.  When we become afraid of the mere reproduction of terms used in the reliable sources we cite to describe things, preferring to bow to how one group of sources, even a large group, refer to it, especially on a controversial topic, one can easily see where WP:NPOV ("let the reader decide") has failed.  If the reader thinks it's preposterous to refer to male circumcision as male genital mutilation, then they won't do it, and perhaps the term will disappear into oblivion and people will stop thinking of circumcision as mutilation.  But that attempt to change from an old, established understanding of what mutilation is (see the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on mutilation, which discusses circumcision of males and females as mutilation) is far from having been made; and I object to these attempts to remove established terminology used in reliable sources old and new, especially in this climate of extreme controversy and large amounts of activism.
 * Note also that Jakew's objection on the basis that referring to male genital mutilation is somehow a "neologism" is also contradicted by the 1911 article linked above. It's not a trademarked phrase, owned by some group with the words capitalized, like Female Genital Mutilation.  It's male genital mutilation, which by first principles is the mutilation of male genitals.  For many (see Britannica), that includes male circumcision.  If the compromise wording is in error, it's that it does not fully capture the idea that some people, and not just "some academics," really do believe male circumcision is mutilation.  They don't merely "refer to" it as mutilation, they consider it mutilation.  Saying that they "refer to" it as mutilation somewhat implies that they are wrong, and that it is not mutilation.  That goes against WP:NPOV, but then that particular problem (of misjudged weight, of ignoring major sources based on their content) has pervaded all genital cutting articles since I've started reading Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Artificial penile nodules
In Argentina, Thailand and Fiji for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snori (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 April 2009‎ (UTC)

Unnecessary images in article
The images currently in the article depict two fairly typical genital piercings and one completely unremarkable circumcised, flaccid penis. They seem to be placed somewhat randomly. Since the article itself is largely directs readers to a number of more specific articles, I don't think the images are helpful in illustrating this wide-ranging topic. I know that gratuitous images of genitalia are one of the defining characteristics of Wikipedia, but I'm going to remove them. Readers who navigate to the linked articles will probably get to see enough penises to fill their quota. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but removing pictures of genitals from an article on genitals seems to be a really daft idea. You really seem to be arguing that there aren't enough pictures of genitals in the article anyway, if we removed all examples of information such as pictures that aren't complete, then the Wikipedia would disappear, almost none of it is complete, and hence it can all be argued to be 'random'. The Wikipedia isn't censored, and this is a good example of a way in which it isn't censored.- Wolfkeeper 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that these images aren't serving any useful purpose in this article. Notice that I have made no suggestion that any images be removed from the linked articles, so your suggestion that this is any sort of "censorship" is unfounded. If you feel the images should be kept, please offer some justification other than the oft-misused WP:NOTCENSORED. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I'm suggesting that all articles should have a reasonable number of related images, and these are clearly related images. Your edit removed all of the images from the article.- Wolfkeeper 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Summary articles can and do contain images from specific articles. For example look at Bearing (mechanical) and rolling element bearing.- Wolfkeeper 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're self-evidently trying to censor the article, you've clearly admitted it by using the phrase 'gratuitous images of genitalia' in your above explanation of what you're up to.- Wolfkeeper 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although WP isn't censored, we should be careful not to have a knee-jerk response to image removal. Put another way, there needs to be a good reason for having images other than lack of censorship.  I think D.C. makes some good points that the images do seem rather arbitrary and perhaps gratuitous; on the other hand I think perhaps we ought to have at least one image to illustrate.  Jakew (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He has no sensible point at all; an article about anything needs to illustrate what it is about, and pictures are an essential part of doing that. I think we should try to have about one illustrative image per section, like we try to do with well-written summary articles.- Wolfkeeper 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wolfkeeper, please stop trying to cast this as something that it isn't. WP:NOTCENSORED means that we have an article about genital modification and mutilation even though some people would rather not encounter such a subject. It does not mean that we are free to sprinkle images of genitalia among the text without regard for their usefulness or, yes, the possibility that readers may be discouraged from going further because of a poorly chosen image. It is entirely appropriate to have images of pierced genitals in genital piercing, but I can not see their value in this summary article. By simply reverting my removal of the images you have demonstrated that you do not care that the choice and placement of images is contrary to the common sense guidance of WP:IMAGE. I have no interest in debating a kneejerk NOTCENSOREDist, so I will start an RfC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that these images are there because they help explain what the particular genital modification is which is pretty much all that images ever do. You're simply trying to remove them because they're pictures of genitals, and because you want them censored. You can say that that's not what you're doing on this all you like, but you're simply quacking.- Wolfkeeper 16:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that logic and reason will get nowhere with you, so I'll wait for others to offer opinions via the RfC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. To quote you:
 * I know that gratuitous images of genitalia are one of the defining characteristics of Wikipedia, but I'm going to remove them. Readers who navigate to the linked articles will probably get to see enough penises to fill their quota.
 * We all have quotas now? Why wasn't I told? You're obviously being very logical and reasonable.- Wolfkeeper 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * People, please! This isn't productive.  Jakew (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Use of images in this article
Given that the linked main articles have images illustrating each particular modification/mutilation, are images necessary or desirable in this summary article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible Oppose of their removal: The rfc is by somebody simply trying to completely remove all images of the article topic. Given any article topic, images are necessary and desirable.- Wolfkeeper 16:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment: Oppose removal. I came here from the RfC, and I have previously never been involved with this page. I looked at the page, and the images appear to me to not be overly sensational or graphic, and they serve a useful purpose in illustrating the material here, even if there are other, linked pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support removal - This article is essentially a summary of other more detailed articles ("main articles") and links to where the reader can find more information on subtopics contained under the broad heading of genital modification and mutilation. Many of those articles have images which illustrate their subject. Images in this article are neither useful nor appropriate. The current images are two images of pierced genitals (both of which link in the image summary to the main article in which they are also used) and one image of a circumcised penis which appears to serve no useful purpose given that circumcision is a very minor part of this article. (Note that Circumcision contains no less than 11 images, including both erect and flaccid circumcised and uncircumcised penises, if there's any question that the reader may not understand the term without an image.) To answer the suggestion that I am in some way attempting some form of censorship, I am not suggesting that these images not be used in the linked articles, nor am I suggesting that these images be deleted - I am simply suggesting that these images should not be used in this particular article per the guidance of WP:IMAGES. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IMAGES says they should not be used, unless their omission would make the topic less informative, relevant or accurate but it is clearly the case that it would make it less informative.- Wolfkeeper 17:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be true on the linked, in-depth articles, but not in this summary article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh right. That makes sense. (hint: sarcasm) Are you a troll?- Wolfkeeper 23:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop the sarcastic remarks. Your opinion has been noted already - perhaps you can let the RfD take its course without further comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, RfCs are for comments by editors who have not previously been part of the debate. That's the point of having them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, if you can find a cite for that in the guideline, I'd have no objection to removing the comments of both Wolfkeeper and myself. To avoid further cluttering this RfC, other comments can be directed to my talkpage. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was saying that to everyone involved. My apologies to you if it sounded like I meant just you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole purpose of an RfC is for editors uninvolved in a dispute to make their views known. You asked us here to hear our views - not the other way around. I should have thought that warnings to discuss matters on a talk page "Before asking outside opinion (at RfC)" made it clear enough. Not that it's a crime against humanity, but it is strange. The Rhymesmith (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal. I must have had some interaction with this article or its talk page, as it is on my watch-list, which is how this came to my attention, but have not actively contributed. The images do not seem undue nor gratuitous, but informative within the context of the page.  The relevant projects' discussion pages need to be notified of this RfC - Sexology, for example, has had no notification about this as yet. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 23:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Partial support. I think that it would be going too far to remove all images from this article, but I am not convinced that the current images are particularly useful or informative to the reader, and I can understand that they may seem gratuitous.  I would support their removal provided that one image is retained.  Jakew (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would meet you half-way there: two images, one male and one female, both showing genital piercing. I am not sure the image of male circumcision is necessary, but if that were to be retained, it should have a female counterpart (which may be problematic). -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What if we were to join those two images, side-by-side, so that they could be presented as one, with a single caption? Jakew (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that in principle, although I am just one commentator - and I would want to be reassured that would not be WP:SYNTH. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 13:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Images are not usually considered to be sources as such &mdash; if they were, we could only include images that had previously been published elsewhere. Consequently, I don't understand how WP:SYNTH, which is a policy about the use of two or more sources simultaneously, can apply.  Jakew (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a joke. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And the "whoosh" sound you may have heard was it going straight over my head. [[Image:Smile eye.png]] Jakew (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal - The images are straight-forward, informative, and are not used gratuitously. I see absolutely no reason for their removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal -- Images are not used provocatively, and are informative and directly related to the topic at hand. No solid reasoning based on policy has been given for their removal. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose removal The only reason that this is being brought up is because the images are of genitals, which is utterly beside the point. They are germane, and, frankly, their absence would be unusual. That being said, I'd suggest the replacement of the female piercing image with an image of female circumcision - one image of piercing is enough, and female circumcision is a much higher-profile topic than voluntary genital piercing. The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The Images look fine. They are not on topic, informative clear and non-offensive.  It might be possible to find better, or additional images to improve the article.  The types of genital piercing and cutting are fairly broad, and yet we have only a few limited examples.  Atom (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Non-offensive" to you, your friends, family and culture maybe - but please don't pretend to speak for all of us. Let's have a little respect for people who have different backgrounds and views, shall we? Either implement a "safe search" wikipedia mode, or hide the images behind an easily toggled interface panel. Pär Larsson (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support removal or implement click-to-see It's an article about genitals. A reasonable person might expect there to be medical drawings or even pictures of genitals in such article. But if you're trying to push your idea that genital pictures should be of no concern whatsoever, I think you're a bit extreme. Put a drawing in there and leave the pictures available for those who click on a "Display image of ______". Pär Larsson (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does "Male Genital Mutilation" redirect here?
"Female Genital Mutilation" redirects to "Female Genital Cutting" which is part of a long series of articles on Violence Against Women. Is there a double standard here with regards to Male Genital Mutilation/Cutting being less notable due to its more mainstream acceptance in Arab/Muslim/Jewish religion, tradition and culture? Shouldn't "Male Genital Mutilation" and "...Cutting" redirect to the Circumcision page? How and where do issues like this end up being resolved on Wikipedia? Pär Larsson (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The main difference between the terms is that "FGM" is frequently used in reliable sources, while "MGM" is only used by a tiny number of sources (in comparison to, say, "circumcision"). A second difference is that, when "FGM" is used, it *always* refers to the set of procedures collectively known as female genital cutting.  In contrast, the term "MGM", where it is used, is much broader than circumcision (if that is included at all), frequently referring to practices such as subincision and crushing of one of the testes.  So it would be inappropriate for MGM to redirect to the circumcision article.  Jakew (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is clearly a strong religion-based, sexist bias being propogated through this and related articles. Regardless of how the imposition of mutilation and cutting of the flesh of, mostly, young humans / babies by adult humans is described or justified it amounts to (i) mutilation, (ii), arguably, child abuse, (iii) primitive, superstitious practice. If religions choose to treat minors and babies under their control in this way, so be it, but in the interests of facts, we should not support the description as 'mutilation' only when it is done to female babies / children and avoid the use of that same, accurate description when it is done to male babies / children, regardless of the influence and strength of the religions that practice and condone it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.219.91 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Current Issues with the Male Circumcision Portion
(MurasakiSunshine (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC))
 * 1) "Frenectomy" definition is redundant information.
 * 2) "Preputioplasty" is not related information.
 * 3) "Often performed on infant boys" is a bit of a stretch since circumcision is a minority practice on a global scale.
 * 4) Adults who are circumcised, at any age, may engage in foreskin restoration.
 * 5) Circumcision exists in other religions aside from Judaism and Islam, primarily in religions of Middle Eastern origin.
 * 6) It may or may not hold religious significance to someone of the Jewish or Muslim faith.
 * 7) Tribal circumcision is not mentioned.
 * I can't see why it is redundant: this article does not otherwise define or even mention frenectomy.
 * I'd say that preputioplasty is related, and quite closely so, since both are frequently performed in treatment of phimosis. However I wouldn't strongly oppose removing this information.
 * I think "often" is quite reasonable. Infant circumcision is common in the US and Canada, and many Muslim cultures perform circumcision in infancy.
 * True. We could shorten this to "Some men engage in".  In fact, we might want to remove mention of foreskin restoration altogether, since it is rather obscure and off-topic.
 * We can't reasonably expect to list every single religion in a short paragraph.
 * I don't see what the problem is here.
 * Again, we can't list every single situation in which it is practiced. This is a single-paragraph summary, not an exhaustive description. Jakew (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada's circumcision rate is less than 10% from what I found online. So, Canada is a bit of a stretch, I think. The USA and Israel are the only countries that practice it as a routine procedure. I couldn't find any evidence of other countries practicing it routinely. Muslims do not traditionally perform circumcision on infants. Middle Eastern religions would suffice to include religions which practice circumcision. Would it be possible just to restore the original paragraph I had? (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC))
 * See Prevalence of circumcision. Neither the US nor Israel practice circumcision routinely, though it is common in both countries.  Other countries with traditions of infant circumcision include Nigeria, Pakistan, and Iran, to name three examples.  To quote the World Health Organisation: "There is no clearly prescribed age for circumcision in Islam, although the prophet Muhammad recommended it be carried out at an early age and reportedly circumcised his sons on the seventh day after birth (6). Many Muslims perform the rite on this day".  I've already explained the problems with the phrase "Middle Eastern religions". Jakew (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How about this? Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, usually for religious, cosmetic, or medical reasons. It may also involve an intentional or accidental frenectomy. The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely, with Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period and African tribes such as the Maasai and Xhosa circumcising in teenage years as initation into adulthood. In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for gangrene or penile cancer. Circumcision of males and females for nonreligious reasons in Western countries began in the 1800s, for purposes of preventing masturbation. Advocacy is often centered around prevention of HIV prevention and religion while opposition is often centered around human rights and potentially harmful side effects of circumcision. The World Health Organization estimated that roughly 30% of the world's men are circumcised. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

If you'd like, the masturbation prevention origin can be removed if you think it's redundant information or running on too long for the paragraph. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC))


 * I'll comment on each sentence in turn:
 * "Male circumcision is the removal" is mostly fine, except that the words "male circumcision" should not be bolded (we only do this in article titles, not section headings).
 * "It may also involve an intentional or accidental frenectomy". Two problems here.  First, the technical term "frenectomy" needs to be defined.  Second, there's no need to say "intentional or accidental": it adds no more meaning than saying nothing.
 * "The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely". Okay so far...
 * "with Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period". This is problematic because it implies that only Americans and Jews do so.
 * "In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for gangrene or penile cancer". These are extremely unlikely examples.  It's much more frequently used for treatment of phimosis and balanitis.
 * "Circumcision of males and females". Females are off-topic.
 * "for nonreligious reasons in Western countries began in the 1800s, for purposes of preventing masturbation". Wrong.  Gollaher traces it to Lewis Sayre, who employed it in the treatment of paralysis.
 * "Advocacy is often centered around prevention of HIV prevention and religion". I don't think many advocate it for religion.

Jakew (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

in indonesia we do Advocacy its called sunat http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunat#Khitan_dalam_Islam and it is for religion. 118.97.128.66 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "potentially harmful side effects of circumcision"

where the citation of this statement? all of my friend are ok with Advocacy 15:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

NEW EDIT Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, usually for religious, cosmetic, or medical reasons. The removal of the frenulum breve may be performed at the same time as circumcision. The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely, with groups such as Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period and African tribes such as the Maasai and Xhosa circumcising in teenage years as initation into adulthood. In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for phimosis, gangrene or penile cancer. Advocacy is often centered around prevention of HIV while opposition is often centered around human rights and potentially harmful side effects of circumcision. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly 30% of the world's men are circumcised. And I'll re-link everything like I did in the first draft. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

Also, I'd like to have another reason for advocacy of male circumcision to counterbalace the opposition arguments but I'm not sure what to add there. Lowering the risk of UTIs, perhaps? (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC))


 * A few minor issues:
 * "removal of the frenulum breve" should be "removal of the frenulum".
 * "at the same time as circumcision" can be shortened to "at the same time".
 * "initation" has a typo.
 * "for phimosis, gangrene or". Change gangrene to balanitis.
 * Otherwise, I think it's fine.
 * Regarding advocacy, I think advocates typically refer to a number of diseases. Maybe "prevention of HIV and other diseases"? Jakew (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think balanitis is a reason for circumcision though since both circumcised and uncircumcised men can get it. Obviously you can't cure balanitis in a circumcised men with circumcision. I can put "advocacy is centered around disease prevention" or something like "advocacy is centered around lowering the risks of certain diseases." I don't know if I should put prevention since some things, it can't prevent 100% but it may lower the risk of.

Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, usually for religious, cosmetic, or medical reasons. The removal of the frenulum may be performed at the same time. The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely, with groups such as Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period and African tribes such as the Maasai and Xhosa circumcising in teenage years as initiation into adulthood. In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for phimosis or paraphimosis(?). Advocacy is often centered around (see paragraph above about wording on what to put here) while opposition is often centered around human rights and potentially harmful side effects of circumcision. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly 30% of the world's men are circumcised. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC))
 * It's much less common in circumcised men, which is why it's often used as treatment. Here are some sources: "Most paediatric urologists recommend circumcision for acquired phimosis, paraphimosis, recurrent balanitis and in boys with recurrent urinary tract infections." "Medical indications for this procedure include phimosis, paraphimosis, recurrent balanitis and posthitis (inflammation of the prepuce)." Jakew (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stick to issues that you can only find in uncircumcised men like phimosis/paraphimosis, if that's okay with you?


 * Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, usually for religious, cosmetic, or medical reasons. The removal of the frenulum may be performed at the same time. The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely, with groups such as Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period and African tribes such as the Maasai and Xhosa circumcising in teenage years as initiation into adulthood. In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for phimosis or paraphimosis. Advocacy is often centered around preventive medicine while opposition is often centered around human rights and potentially harmful side effects of circumcision. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly 30% of the world's men are circumcised.

This the current change I made. I chose the phrase "preventive medicine." (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Large-scale studies consistently report that phimosis and balanitis are the most common reasons for circumcision. For example, "In boys with a known indication, 90 per cent underwent circumcision for phimosis, 8 per cent for recurrent balanitis and 2 per cent for other reasons." "The most common medical indication for circumcision at all ages was phimosis, followed by balanoposthitis and balanitis xerotica obliterans."  It makes sense to list more common reasons, rather than rarer ones, and to be frank you haven't really offered a persuasive argument to do otherwise. Jakew (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. I've never heard of balanitis being treated by circumcision unless it was after mulitlpe infections. Does your study have circumcision as a treatment for people after multiple infections or just one time infections? Do they specify a difference? Would "treatment for recurrent balanitis" be better if they don't specify the difference? (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC))

Redirects from genital integrity
Shouldn't genital integrity go to bodily integrity since this page doesn't really address anything about the genital integrity movement? It just addresses genital modification. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC))

Discussion of proposed new content "Four Types of Genital Mutilations"
New proposed content "Four Types of Genital Mutilations" sourced to http://www.self-help-sexuality.com/male-genital-mutilation.html was removed because the source is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. The website is an anonymous self-published source. Please provide a reliable source for the content. 04:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. It's a shame the other editor,, isn't discussing it here instead of edit-warring. . 88.104.5.244 (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made two sources which show the exact same things. both of them are reliable.

I have been not waging in a edit war. it's HIM. he doesn't want me put MGM in wikipedia. in each time he removes it from the wikipedia what's his problem?

Faulk (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. If you continue to ignore WP:RS, you will find Wikipedia an inhospitable place. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Zad68
Keeps reverting the addition of Template:VAM even though genital mutilation can be done to men against their consent. Claims this is not supported by sources. It is well established that this is done to babies without consent, so why wouldn't it be violence against men? Ranze (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Feeding can also be done to men (and women) against their consent; do you plan on adding the template to Eating? -- Avi (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Moved here from my User Talk page. 14:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because eating is not inherently violent or destructive like genital mutilation or acid throwing is. I don't understand your example. I would be for removing acid-trowing from VAM if we also removed it from VAW, though. We could limit things on the templates to specifically gendered forms of violence. Violence that both genders suffer can be on a broader non-gendered violence template. Ranze (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation as you requested, please tell me what you're looking for in terms of sources. We don't exactly include reference tags next to templates. It's rather common sense to me that genital mutilation without consent to either sex is violence to either sex.

Could you please make your case of why it is violence against women, but not men, when this happens?

Please tell me also why you are not taking the VAW template off of the women's section. What 'source's support keeping the template there? I get a feeling like cherrypicking. Where is the appropriate place to compare these sources?

To be constructive, why not present me with an example of the sources you think validates the inclusion of the VAW template so that I can see what you're looking for and find something similar as a counterpart? Ranze (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ranze, to start with, regarding tell me also why you are not taking the VAW template off of the women's section: I don't understand your request because in this article Genital modification and mutilation, the section Female genitals does not have the Violence against women template in it, and should not, as many of the items here are done for medical reasons or personal preferences and aren't considered by the sources to be "violence" along the lines of the items in the violence series templates.  This article is a general survey of what is done and serves as a summary-style article pointing to the many individual sub-articles.  The individual sub-articles go deeper into the whys and those are the articles that will have the templates. Did you actually mean to have this add to the conversation at Template_talk:Violence_against_men?  I don't mean to be pedantic but I want to make sure I'm answering the right question in the right context and location.  Thanks...    14:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason for this is because female genital mutilation has its own article which DOES have the VAW template. male genital mutilation on the other hand, does not, and simply redirects to this section. Why do we have a whole 'mutilation' article for females' but only a 'modification and mutilation' section for males? Ranze (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason for this disparity is because the disparity exists in the reliable sourcing, and Wikipedia will reflect the sourcing. This was explained to you at Template_talk:Violence_against_men.  Can we pick just one place to have this conversation please?    03:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

@Ranze - I am seeing a pattern of reversions across many articles by a small but determined cohort of editors who are attempting to steer all articles that touch upon the subject of male genital mutilation to a finished and patrolled content that puts it in a positive light and excludes materials or especially links that question that positive view. Typically one editor reverts and then a predictable cohort appear and make supporting noises. Regular editors who work alone often then assume that this manufactured consensus is a real one or just get weary, no change happens and the discussion gets auto archived in 7 days.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, Tuma. As the genital integritist view is not the predominant one in English literature, it indicates that it is more likely that a group of activists from circumstition or similar sites is trying to implement an WP:UNDUE view in these articles. -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What is 'english literature' here exactly Avra? Ranze (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The way it is described in the preponderance of written English reliable and verifiable sources. Please see WP:UNDUE for more details. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd argue 'english lit' not be used to describe that grouping, the sources we situationally deign to label reliable or verifiable do not include all of english literature. Ranze (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The "literature "that editors who are keen to see articles show circumcision in a favourable light are usually referring to is secondary sources only within  the academic medical literature.  Much other material which I have referred to before such as forced  adult circumcision in Africa, the sale and  reuses of excised foreskins within the scientific, cosmetics,  and pharmaceutical industries  (they fetch about 200 dollars each in USA)   which are reported in mainstream newspapers and elsewhere are loftily and erroneously dismissed as "not being from secondary sources". Even the medical literature is presented in such a way that, for example, strong academic doubts about trials of MC in Africa to stem HIV are marginalized or go unmentioned.  The french language and german language WP MC articles are richer in useful references and  present a wider picture of male circumcision in more of its  aspects. Thus a false picture is given that the "literature" reflects the current skewed article balance and content.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 07:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Should circumcision be at the top of the article as it is oldest and most popular of the "chopping off bits "modifications/mutilations?
Should circumcision be at the top of the article as it is oldest and most popular of the "chopping off bits "modifications/mutilations? Instead it is buried way down in the article  below much rarer and more  exotic   dicing and slicing practices ? Could we be guilty of giving undue prominence to the rare for some reason here ....--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is already at the top of he "Male" section. The article's order appears to be general modification, then female genital specific, then male specific. The article covers many topics, and the order seems logical enough. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I repeat - the commonest procedure should logically be most prominent - therefore male circumcision should feature prominently at article lead and and should also be listed before the less common FGM. Not logical enough yet Jayjig.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 07:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation → genital modification – Modification is the more inclusive term, we can make a note about modifications being considered 'mutilation' in specific circumstances. This move would be a close cognate to body modification (which is redirected to from body alteration and body mutilation, I guess that makes redirecting to genital alteration an option too... and there is no body modification and mutilation silliness). Right now, this article doesn't do anything to explain the difference in nouns except for a brief "any of these procedures may be considered modifications or mutilations by different groups of people." in the intro. The only mention of 'mutilation' in this article is self-mutilation and FGM. We have male genital mutilation redirecting which is misleading because 'mutilate' is a word that doesn't even appear in the 'male genitals' section. To present this neutrally, we should describe all procedures inclusively as 'modification' and then make a note of popular terms like FGM being used for certain groupings of them. Ranze (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article covers both topics, which are often related, but are not identical. Jayjg (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I would like to ask that we re-open the possibility of moving this page. There is no "both topics" dichotomy. All mutilation is a form of modification and therefore we're saying "rectangles and squares", essentially. Mutilations is a sub-group of modifications which are perceived as negative according to non-specific and subjective standards. Mutilation is not a useful noun to use as an article title when we are in pursuit of neutrality here. Modification is not some positive opposite to mutilation, it is an inclusive neutral term which includes it. We should simply include a note about it being called 'mutilation' when criticized.

There may be some cognate term for mutilation implying a positive modification, I'm just not really aware of it. If we are viewing modify/mutilate as discrete concept then how about a move to genital changes or something? Considering nominating for that, simpler. Ranze (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Change page name to: genital alterations
This page fails to discuss the distinction between modification and mutilation.

Genital alterations is a broader term that encompasses both.

DavidHGrateful (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, what matters is what wording reliable sources most commonly use. What evidence are you bringing to support a case that "genital alterations" is more common?  See WP:TITLE for Wikipedia's policy on this.    02:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Male versus female genital alteration: differences in legal, medical, and socioethical responses." Gend Med. 2007 Jun;4(2):89-96.

Solomon LM, Noll RC. Source Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, New York 10036-8299, USA. Lsolomon@proskuaer.com

Abstract: The different legal, social, and medical approaches to ritually based male and female genital circumcision in the United States are highlighted in this article. The religious and historical origins of these practices are briefly examined, as well as the effect of changing policy statements by American medical associations on the number of circumcisions performed. Currently, no state or federal laws single out male circumcision for regulation. The tolerant attitudes toward male circumcision in law, medicine, and societal opinion stand in striking contrast to the attitudes of those disciplines toward even the least invasive form of female genital alteration. US law tacitly condones male circumcision by providing exemptions that are not available for other medical procedures, while criminalizing any similar or even less extensive procedure on females. The increase in immigration, over the past few decades, of people from countries in which female genital alteration is a cultural tradition has brought the issue to the United States. The medical profession's changing approach over time toward male circumcision is primarily responsible for such different legal and societal reactions toward female genital alteration. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17707843 DavidHGrateful (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between modification and mutilation.
Hi, so sorry for for my first attempt at editing without using this talk page. I would like to help develop this article and bring clarification to this distinction as the article currently lacks. DavidHGrateful (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How can there be two terms in the heading, but no discussion of them independently. DavidHGrateful (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What do reliable sources have to say on the matter?  02:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A reliable source is anyone who has experienced either. They will tell you what was done to them.


 * Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death.


 * Body modification (or body alteration, called body mutilation by detractors) is the deliberate altering of the human anatomy or phenotype. It usually is connotative of an improvement.


 * These are very different terms. The difference is based on the intentions and consent of the people involved, with the most emphasis on the person whose genitals are being altered.75.140.98.212 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair point, something like a piercing does not cause injury like sex reassignment does. It does not have anything to do with the intentions of anyone though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

POV and Bias Problems on This Page
This page has been plagued with biased editing and wholesale deletion of the MGM section. The notion that sexual violence does not and has never existed against men is ridiculous and unfounded and clearly contradicted by many other articles on Wikipedia and in peer reviewed sources. Medical organizations recognize Routine Infant Circumcision as a human rights violation, and I don't think anyone would argue that forced castration, penectomy, penile flaying, infibulation, forced circumcision of slaves and forced converts, or any of the other very real crimes committed against men are Genital Mutilation. In addition, organizations that oppose FMG recognize MGM as a real problem and oppose it. It exists; therefore there needs to be a MGM section and it needs to take into account the full breadth and brutality of the issue.

And since someone always tries to reduce the issue to male circumcision, that cannot be excepted either. No national medical organization promotes the procedure (the American CDC says that potential benefits may outweigh the harm done by the medical procedure; it does not address the human rights concerns). All major medical organizations around the world condemn Routine Infant Circumcision as a human rights violation specifically. Other national organizations that promote or require it do so for religious reasons and make no claim that it is for medical reasons.

Medical studies showing benefits only do so when circumcision is combined with free condoms and sex counseling for the man and his partners and only in heterosexual men who regularly have sex with prostitutes in HIV epidemic regions. Studies have shown the benefits of the surgical procedure have to do with bacteria levels on the penis, which is most likely why the same benefits are not shown in populations with regular access to clean bathing water or who have a practical or cultural compulsion to wash their genitals after sex. Studies have also shown that the same bacteria is present in much higher levels (there is a direct correlation between bacteria levels and rates of HIV transmission) in the vagina, and a larger amount of biological material from a woman's partner is retained in the vagina, but there is no push for FGM to prevent HIV transmission. There has not even been a study to address the idea.

Most MGM is driven by men out of fear of rejection by the opposite sex, the community, and religious institutions. Most FGM is driven by women out of fear of rejection by the opposite sex, the community, and religious institutions. If a mother's religious freedom does not extend so far as to allow her to have her daughter's genitals modified, then neither does a father's. A boy's right to bodily integrity is no less than a girl's. A man's right to religious freedom is no greater than a woman's.

Finally, the psychological phenomenon that drives a person to commit a crime against others that was committed against them is well documented. It's far easier to pass it along than it is to admit being a victim. A person's acceptance or rejection of their own genital mutilation (I'm not talking about adult religious conversions, fetishes, or aesthetic modifications) has no bearing on the fact that modifying the healthy tissue of another human being without consent and without the medical necessity required to invoke proxy consent is unethical and criminal according to any logical reading of medical and social mandates.

The modifications and deletions of the MGM section are petty, destructive, and POV driven. We should be working together to improve Wikipedia, not slashing articles that disagree with personal sentiments in the face of history, peer reviewed literature, and official standpoints of experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit15817 (talk • contribs)
 * Blah blah blah... Cite medical sources or quit pushing an MRM POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of personal offence and nonconstructive editing I'm talking about. I'm not sure why you take such personal issue with this section, but there is nothing 'fringe' about the existence of MGM as a phenomenon. The vast majority, if not all, of organizations of medical experts range from condemning neonatal circumcision as a human rights violation to recommending strongly against it. And I'm sure there is universal acceptance that the various other current and historical forms of MGM committed against prisoners, slaves, forced converts, minorities, etc. constitute Genital Mutilation. Why are you spending so much of your time pretending this doesn't exist? Edit15817 (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only thing nonconstructive is your continued failure to cite medical sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Official Statements on Routine Infant Circumcision
First, MGM encompasses more than neonatal circumcision and requires mention in the article by reason of those procedures alone. Second, the status of male circumcision is not disputed among experts and statements are easily found in freely accessible reports. There is nothing novel, no original interpretation, and no lack of clarity in the following statements (and there are many more). And third, facts that are found universally in sources and are easily observed and confirmed do not require citation, but here's some material to get the conversation started:


 * The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG)
 * "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."


 * International Physicians Protest Against American Academy of Pediatrics’ Policy on Infant Male Circumcision (KNMG) (physicians from 16 countries)
 * "Circumcision conflicts with children’s rights and doctors’ oath and can have serious long-term consequences


 * American Cancer Society
 * "...based on the low risk of this cancer in the US, it would take over 900 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer in this country."


 * Royal Australasian College of Physicians, 2010
 * "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."


 * The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) 2009
 * "The matter of infant male circumcision is particularly difficult in regards to human rights, as it involves consideration of the rights of the infant as well as the rights of the parents. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity. Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure. Therefore, many consider it to be 'unwarranted mutilating surgery.'


 * The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba (CPSM) 2002
 * "Many adult men are increasingly concerned about whether their parents had the right to give consent for infant male circumcision. They claim that an infant's rights should take priority over any parental rights to make such a decision. This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non-therapeutic procedure."


 * " ...specific medical indications for the performance of circumcision in the neonate are rare. ... the degree of benefit is small and does not support a decision to circumcise neonates."


 * American Academy of Pediatrics 1999
 * Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.


 * "...the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision."


 * American Academy of Pediatrics 1971
 * There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.


 * Canadian Paediatric Society (2015)
 * "Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent… the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."


 * British Medical Association (2006)
 * "The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child’s interests. . . . The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. . . . Some doctors may wish to not perform circumcisions for reasons of conscience. Doctors are under no obligation to comply with a request to circumcise a child."


 * The Children's Hospital at Westmead/Sydney Children's Hospital
 * "The Australian and New Zealand Association of Paediatric Surgeons (ANZAPS), the Australasian Urological Society and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) do not recommend that boys be circumcised routinely."


 * The Royal Australasian College of Physicians-2010 (RACP)
 * "Ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male circumcision because it is recognised that the foreskin has a functional role, the operation is non-therapeutic and the infant is unable to consent. 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.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit15817 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your personal emphasis (or the emphasis of whatever MRM blog you grabbed these purported statements from) constitutes editorializing original research, which we do not use. Furthermore, many of those cherry-picked, out-of-context statements don't actually so much condemn as simply not support.  Nor do they explicitly refer to it as mutilation, nor does it support many of the MRM conspiracy theories you've previously ranted about. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding a Male Genital Mutilation Section
I'm not sure why the changes to the Male Genital Mutilation section were rolled back. For the most part they mirrored the text of the Female Genital Mutilation section. As far as I can tell the rollback was performed to protect the opinions of those in favor of Male Genital Mutilation (I assume specifically male circumcision) and therefore represent a non-neutral point of view. No reasoning was given and no arguments were specified, but in good faith I'll address what I think must be the most important points:

1) There needs to a Female Genital Mutilation and Male Genital Mutilation section in this article. There are many forms of genital mutilation performed on males and females.

2) If it's deemed necessary to have a separate subsection addressing male circumcision and its religious and cultural circumstances, that could be added

3) Male circumcision is, like female circumcision, a form of genital mutilation, so the main heading should be Male Genital Mutilation. The foreskin is part of the male genitalia and the definition of 'mutilate' leaves no doubt that the removal of the foreskin, a discrete and identifiable body part, from a person is mutilation:

Merriam-Webster [1]:

1 to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect 

2 to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Dictionary.com [2]:

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

4) I agree with other readers that there needs to be a distinction made in the article between fetishist/aesthetic body modification performed by or on request of the person undergoing the procedure; therapeutic treatments for acute medical conditions; and non-therapeutic, involuntary genital mutilation.

5) No major health organization recommends routine infant circumcision. The WHO, for instance, is very specific in recommending male circumcision only on a voluntary basis for adult men in regions with heterosexual HIV epidemics and only by well trained medical personnel in a medical setting -- not for children and never by non-medically trained religious or cultural representatives.

6) The harmful side effects of male circumcision are well documented. The loss of erogenous tissue and nerve endings, loss of mobility, increased keratinization and drying of the glans, as well as the various medical and surgical complications that in any procedure can lead to disfigurement and death.

7) If someone holds the opinion that there are benefits to male circumcision, and that they outweigh the harm done, they may argue to excuse its practice or even encourage it. Its classification as genital mutilation does not change. The presence of negative side-effects is not affected.

Considering these points, the factual, neutral, and appropriate description of male circumcision is as Male Genital Mutilation. The changes were cited and accurate. We should not be in the practice of censoring encyclopedia articles to preserve the feelings of any group(s).

[1] "Mutilate." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.

[2] "mutilation". Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 12 Sep. 2016. .

[3] "Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention." World Health Organization. World Health Organization, n.d. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.65.94 (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * On November 4, I removed the section because it was quite clearly created to mimic the female genital mutilation content and to paint circumcision as genital mutilation, and I removed it because there is already a circumcision section in the article. The wording of the male genital mutilation section literally took the World Health Organization's wording for female genital mutilation and applied it to the notion of male genital mutilation. As has been discussed times before at Talk:Circumcision and at Talk:Female genital mutilation, there are various reasons why circumcision is not considered mutilation or to be on the same par with female genital mutilation.


 * Moments ago, reverted me, stating, "Genital Mutilation is not funny. Discuss wording before deleting sections. MGM covers more than male circumcision", and Ian.thomson reverted him, stating that he should bring the matter to the talk page. It seems that Edit15817 is the IP. I will see if WP:Med is willing to weigh in on this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're comparing FMG and MGM at all. And it seems you are reducing FGM to Type III and MGM to circumcision. There's no need for the reduction or the comparison here. Many people would agree, though, that penectomy, castration, and penile flaying (to mention a few) are all equivalent at least to any form of FGM. Furthermore, circumcision removes the frenulum and ridged band which are not only highly valued parts of man's sexuality, but are also designed to trigger ejaculation, stimulate erection, maintain erection, and allow for faster subsequent ejaculations. Removal of these structures reduces a man's sexual efficiency (as already noted elsewhere on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why this page is being targeted for censorship) as well as his sexual pleasure. We could also talk about how it creates a captive customer base for multi-billion dollar erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals, ribbed for her pleasure condoms, and personal lubricants for men who have had the natural mobility of their genitals removed, or that the foreskin is often sold to pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies to produce for-profit goods creating a conflict of interest, but again, none of that is necessary to justify a section on Male Genital Mutilation in an encyclopedia. FGM and MGM have a lot of similarities, but there is no need to compare them in any way. None of this is a secret or speculative or really controversial at all. Wikipedia will benefit from an unhampered discussion of both phenomena, FGM and MGM. Edit15817 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW, reverting a commit and accusing the author of intentionally mimicking or making light of a serious human rights issue without reason or evidence is not in line with the kind of community Wikipedia promotes. Edit15817 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not accept unsourced "research" based on POV-driven conspiracy theories. Cite medical sources or go away. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that this section begins by comparing FGM to MGM, and the section I removed was mimicking the FGM section, I do not see why you are not sure that I'm comparing FGM to MGM. Frankly, I'm not sure why you repeatedly used the letters "FMG" instead of "FGM." As for anything else, unless I stated my views or otherwise made my views very clear, it's best not to assume what I think. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * High quality references are needed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've collapsed the OP above as it was not a proposal to change content based on reliable sources as defined in the policies and guidelines, and per WP:TPG article Talk pages are not soapboxes Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Male Circumcision with Better Sources
I apologize if I came of as soap-boxing. I hope you can take it in good faith that I'm trying to fill a gap in an article and not start an argument or proselytize unfounded theories. Recommendations for style, sources, or content would be welcome.

Wikipedia allows for multiple, even dissenting, views as long as they are supported. Please explain why you think the Royal Dutch Medical Association is a fringe organization, conspiracy theorists, or otherwise unqualified as a source for Wikipedia. I'd also like to know in what context their statement means anything other than what it appears to:

"Surgical removal of the foreskin from boys without medical reason is harmful and a serious violation of fundamental children's rights, states the KNMG in its standpoint on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys." [1]

In her book[2] Chantal Zabus, a FGM activist and scholar, talks about contemporary FGM, which she refers to as 'excision'. She spends some time examining similarities and differences between MGM and FGM in practice and severity, and while she concludes that in practice, modern FGM is generally more severe than modern MGM, she acknowledges points already made. Namely, there are many types of male circumcision varying in severity, and at its most severe "certainly matches the severity of contemporary excision", and "both male and female circumcision may be labeled rituals... with disastrous and at times lifelong consequences for both males and females". I can include the relevant excerpt (2-3 paragraphs) if that would be helpful for context.

1. "Jongensbesnijdenis." KNMG. KNMG, Web. 29 Nov. 2016.

2. Zabus, Chantal. Between Rites and Rights: Excision in Women's Experiential Texts and Human Contexts. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2007. Print. Pages 14-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit15817 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW, I'd like to state clearly again, I have no interest in comparing MGM to FGM in severity or any other way. I'm only saying it exists and should be included in the article. I'm also not proposing a circumcision section. I would personally include circumcision (especially severe types, like penile flaying) based on what I've read, but my first thoughts go to castratti (castration), eunuchs (castration/penectomy), slaves/POWs who were forcibly circumcised or castrated by enemy combatants (historically and by modern terrorist organizations), etc. Edit15817 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, Jytdog and Doc James, any thoughts on Edit15817's latest post? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Given how he previously isolated statements from medical organizations along the lines of "neither for nor against it," and represented them as if they were condemnation, I'd rather wait until someone else verifies his sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unclear what the user means by MGM. We discuss circumcision is this article already.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Genital modification and mutilation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150715233215/http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/fgmc to http://data.unicef.org/child-protection/fgmc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030114149/http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_country_profiles/corecode/30/Countries/FGMC_SOM.pdf to http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_country_profiles/corecode/30/Countries/FGMC_SOM.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Genital modification and mutilation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030110609/http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_country_profiles/corecode/30/Countries/FGMC_DJI.pdf to http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_country_profiles/corecode/30/Countries/FGMC_DJI.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030113629/http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_country_profiles/corecode/30/Countries/FGMC_ERI.pdf to http://data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/document6/uploaded_country_profiles/corecode/30/Countries/FGMC_ERI.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Split suggestion
The title of the article is "Genital modification and mutilation". The article suggests as, if the genital alteration is voluntary, then it's genital modification and if involuntary, then it's genital mutilation.

But is it an ethical approach to discuss both voluntary genital modification and involuntary genital mutilation in same article? There should be 2 different article, one for voluntary alteration, another for involuntary alteration or mutilation.

Otherwise people may mix up voluntary genital modification with involuntary genital mutilation and may consider both as analogous. It can make people confused.

I request to divide the article into 2 articles – one “Voluntary genital modification” and another “Genital mutilation”.

And the definitions of 2 different terms - "Voluntary genital modification" and "Genital mutilation" should be posted in 2 different articles (as this article will be divided into 2 articles). And the 2 subject should be discussed seperately in 2 articles for better understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiscrund68 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding your suggested split, there is bound to be overlap. What some people consider modification...others consider mutilation. I have WP:Content fork concerns about such a split. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people used to believe, it is not going to change the definition of "genital modification" and "genital mutilation". If a person's genitals are altered without his/her consent, it's simply a "genital mutilation", no matter some people believe it to be "genital modification".

Blind beliefs of people won't change the definitions. For example, cutting off parts or all of external female genitalia of a child girl without her informed consent, in the countries where it's popular, is known as "female circumcision" and no one there calls it "female genital mutilation". In many languages, there is no equivalent term for "female genital mutilation", but there are terms for "female circumcision". For example, in Arabic, ritual cutting of external genitalia of child girls is known as "Khatna al'iinath", which means "female circumcision".

Clearly, many people, especially in the countries where the practice is popular don't consider ritual cutting of external female genitalia a mutilation.

But I do hope, this doesn't make sufficient ground to rename the Wikipedia article "Female genital mutilation" to "Female circumcision".

So, therefore, I would like to appeal for my request once again. The article should be divided into 2 articles - "Genital modification" and "Genital mutilation". And if a procedure involves involuntary (or forced) genital alteration, it should only be categorized under the Wikipedia article "Genital mutilation" and regardless of what people used to believe, Wikipedia can not mix it up with voluntary genital modification which is not a criminal offence. If Wikipedia does so, it will simply be an injustice for genital mutilation victims, regardless of what the perpetrators and their supporters claim and believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiscrund68 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Medical dictionaries do not count male circumcision to be a mutilation. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilate#medicalDictionary

What people consider mutilation is opinion since the definition does not specify that it has to be involuntary. Mutilation usually refers to removal of essential organs, such as limbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenod888 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I really wondered to read your last comment. You mentioned as "Medical dictionary does not count male circumcision as mutilation!" What's the supporting reference to your claim. You provided a link that represents the definition of mutilation only. The definition suggests as cutting off any functional body part will be a mutilation. So where do you get the information that foreskin is a redundant, vestigial skin, an optional extension of the penis? You are claiming as cutting off foreskin is similar to cutting off hair and nails. Furthermore, what do you mean by "circumcision?". Surgical removal of foreskin of a child for inevitable medical necessity is called circumcision. Now you claim as non-medical mutilation of foreskin for religious/traditional reasons are also circumcision. So a mutilation is same thing as a medical procedure and both are labeled as "circumcision". This is to be noted that most of the male sexual mutilations in underdeveloped countries are performed by illiterate local operators. Most importantly, medical science does not consider non-medical mutilation of a functional body part as a medical procedure. This is applicable for any body part and not just the foreskin. So non-medical mutilation of foreskin has nothing to do with medical science and it's not a medical procedure at all. It's rather a criminal procedure. Only when the foreskin is removed for an inevitable medical necessity, it's a medical procedure and it's called circumcision. The difference between circumcision and male sexual mutilation is same as the difference between labiaplasty and female sexual mutilation type IIa. Labiaplasty is a medical procedure involving surgical removal of labia minora for a medical necessity. But if a child girl's labia minora is cut off without any medical necessity, even if it's performed by a doctor (more than 80% of female sexual mutilations in Egypt are performed by doctors), it has nothing to do with medical science, it's a mutilation and not a medical procedure. Will you call non-medical ritual cutting of labia minora "female circumcision (type IIa)". If not, how dare you call non-medical ritual cutting of foreskin "male circumcision"? The so called benefits of male sexual mutilations are just frauds. Male sexual mutilation does not create any immunity to any disease or infection, so it's in no way comparable with a vaccine. Male sexual mutilation is advertised as infection, medical condition preventative. However, infections and medical conditions can affect any body part and not just the foreskin. So what about getting such benefits by cutting off other body parts. So pulling off healthy molar teeths of childrens will be a medical benefit as it prevents dental cavities, even though it doesn't create any immunity to cavities. Cutting off breasts of male childrens will be a medical benefit as it will prevent male breast cancer which affects more men than penile cancer affect men, even though it will not create any immunity to male breast cancer. The most important point to note that the foreskin is not the body part most vulnerable to diseases and infections. Female external genitalia such as labia folds are much more vulnerable to diseases and infections than the foreskin. Foreskin produces smegma than keeps the foreskin always moist making the foreskin vulnerable to infections. But this is very important to note that girls produce much more smega than boys inside their labia folds and under clitoral hood. The smegma creates a warm and moist environment inside labia folds, creating an ideal environment for bacterial growth making labia much more vulnerable to diseases and infections than the foreskin. Thus, routine cutting off labia minora of healthy child girls can prevent a wide range of infections and medical conditions such as Clitoral phimosis, Vulvities (infection), vulvovaginal candidiasis, urinary tract infection, vulvodynia (vulvar pain), Dyspareunia, Chronic pain of the vulva, Hygienic difficulties, Vulvar cancer, Vulvar scabies, Lichen sclerosus, Labial adhesion affecting external female genitalia. So cutting off labia minora will have a lot more medical benefit than cutting off the foreskin. So, it's very obvious that the fraudulent unscientific benefits of male sexual mutilation is same as the benefits of female sexual mutilation.

American Pediatrics and their organization American Academy of Pediatrics, the inventors and sponsors of the benefits of male sexual mutilation are well documented frauds. They make a huge amount of money each year by sexually mutilating American baby boys. They also sell the foreskin to anti-aging cream companies, biomedical researchers, etc. buyers. It's a billion dollar industry there. Now the reason behind this giant fraud committed by "American Academy of Pediatrics" is very clear.

According to the Wikipedia article “Mutilation” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation), the definition of “Mutilation” or “Maiming” is as follows-

“Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.”

According to “Oxford Dictionaries” (published by the Oxford University Press), “Mutilation or maiming is removal of or injury to a body part so that the part of the body is permanently damaged.” Ref: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/maim

The Wikipedia article “Mutilation” also states as, “Some ethnic groups practice ritual mutilation, e.g. scarification, circumcision (indicating to non-medical foreskin mutilation), burning, flagellation, tattooing, or wheeling, as part of a rite of passage.” Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation

As you can see, the Wikipedia article “Mutilation” is describing “non-medical foreskin mutilation” as a “ritual mutilation”. So the Wikipedia article “Mutilation” and the Wikipedia article “Genital modification and mutilation” conflicts with each other.

The Wikipedia article “Mutilation” also states as, “Whether or not male circumcision (indicating to non-medical foreskin mutilation) amounts to mutilation is a subject of active academic debate, but the Danish Society for General Medicine (who has approximately 3000 members and includes two thirds of all the country's general practitioners) has declared in 2014 that male circumcision (indicating to non-medical foreskin mutilation) an ethically unacceptable mutilation.” Ref: http://www.bt.dk/danmark/danske-laeger-omskaering-af-drenge-er-lemlaestelse [Note: The news in published in Danish. Thus, it needs to be translated with google translator.] Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/denmarks-29000-doctors-declare-circumcision-of-healthy_us_58753ec1e4b08052400ee6b3

Furthermore, there is no difference between cutting off foreskin or cutting off any other body part, according to medical and legal definition and according to the above definition of “Mutilation” from Wikipedia and Oxford Dictionaries, no offense.

You said as mutilation is cutting off an essential body part such as limbs. I wonder, what qualifies as an essential body part here. And if only cutting off vital organs is mutilation, I really wonder how is cutting off labia minora or even cutting off clitoral hood (female prepuce - the skin covering clitoral glans) supposed to be a mutilation. Labia minora, clitoral hood are no essential body part, compared to limbs. So there will be no mutilation in cutting off labia minora, clitoral hood. Right? So can you explain, why is cutting off labia minora only is called female sexual mutilation type IIa. Why is cutting off clitoral hood only (female prepuce - the skin covering the clitoral glans) is called female sexual mutilation type Ia. How is labia minora or clitoral hood more functional or more essential than the foreskin?

Sounds like you are claiming as foreskin is a vestigial and redundant skin, an optional extension of the penis. And cutting off foreskin is no more than cutting of hair and nails. If you mean so, then what are your supporting references for this claim? No academic book has ever labeled foreskin as a vestigial, redundant skin and an optional extension of the penis. Rather, foreskin is healthy, functional and highly specialized organ, the major erogenous zone of human penis and an integral and essential part of human penis. Foreskin is more functional than the rest part of the skin on the penis. So, if you claim as cutting off foreskin does not cause any harm, then cutting off all the skin from the penis should not cause any harm as well. Don't you think? Do you know about a single function that the rest of the penile skin has but the foreskin doesn't have? If not, then, how do you claim foreskin as a redundant skin. If rest of the penile skin is esential part of human penis, how do you claim foreskin as an optional extension of human penis? And in what academic book you found the information that foreskin is not an essential part of human penis. Foreskin is referred as an integral and essential part of human penis in anatomy and physiology textbooks.

Legal status of male sexual mutilation: According to law, cutting off any body part (it’s not only about foreskin or clitoral glans, but any body part) from a person’s body is an “organ mutilation” and a serious criminal offence, which in legal terms is known as “grievous bodily harm”.

About the parental rights (which many people used to mispresent), parents can authorize to get a body part of their child cut off (it’s not only about foreskin or clitoral glans, but any body part) only if there’s any inevitable medical necessity. But parents can’t get a body part of their child cut off without any medical necessity but for their personal gain (e.g. religious, traditional, cultural, social or other gain). For example, parents can’t get their child’s foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging.

Stupid hospital authorities in United States provide parents a consent form to sign when the parents ask for a foreskin mutilation of their baby boy. But these consent forms actually have no legal significance. And we hope these stupid hospital authorities shouldn’t also provide a consent form to parents who have brought their child to hospital to get the child’s foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging.

As of 2015, 24 US states have specific laws against female sexual mutilation. Ref: https://www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/EN_FAQ_FGM_in_US.pdf and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation_in_the_United_States But this does not mean that female sexual mutilation is legal in rest of the 26 US states. Nor male sexual mutilation is legal in any of those 50 US states.

The US hospital authorities, who provide parents a consent form to sign when the parents ask for a sexual mutilation of their baby boy, we hope the hospital authorities shouldn’t also provide a consent form to parents who have brought their daughter in hospital to be sexually mutilated in any of the 26 US states where there’s no specific law against female sexual mutilation.

According to “Center for Reproductive Rights”, so far, only a few countries (where female sexual mutilation is prevalent) have passed specific law against female sexual mutilation. In all other countries, means in majority of the countries, there is no specific law against female sexual mutilation. Should it only mean that female sexual mutilation is legal in all those countries? Ref: https://www.reproductiverights.org/document/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-legal-prohibitions-worldwide

Even if a country or state has specific law against sexual mutilation, this doesn’t mean that in that state or country, a victim of genital mutilation can’t file additional charges such as “grievous bodily harm”, “child abuse”, “sexual violence”, “domestic violence/custodial violence”, “3rd degree torture”, “religious freedom violation” against the perpetrators apart from the “sexual mutilation” charge. For example, according to “United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)”, depending on the country (where specific law has been passed against female sexual mutilation), punishments range from a minimum of six months to a maximum of life in prison. And several countries also include monetary fines in the penalty. Ref: http://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#banned_by_law

You see, 6 months of imprisonment is nothing for a violence involving “grievous bodily harm”, “child abuse”, “sexual violence”, “domestic violence/custodial violence”, “3rd degree torture”, “religious freedom violation”.

So, definitely the victim of female sexual mutilation can also file charges such as “grievous bodily harm”, “child abuse”, “sexual violence”, “domestic violence/custodial violence”, “torture”, “religious freedom violation” against the perpetrators along with the “sexual mutilation” charge.

Court cases on “Male sexual mutilation” incidences:

In July 2012, the district court of Cologne in Germany ruled male sexual mutilation "for the purpose of religious upbringing constitutes a violation of physical integrity".

The judgement added: "The child boy’s body is permanently and irreparably changed by the sexual mutilation. This change conflicts with the child's interest of later being able to make his own decision on his religious affiliation."

The case stemmed from a sexual mutilation on a four-year-old Muslim boy who had to be taken to hospital when complications developed. That, unusually, put the case into the legal system and the doctor was prosecuted.

As the charge put it, the doctor "physically mistreated another person and injured that person's health by means of a dangerous instrument".

In the end, the doctor was cleared. The court decided that male sexual mutilation was illegal but that the doctor couldn't have been expected to have known this. It had been done for so long that it seemed legal when - according to the court - it wasn't.

Because the doctor was cleared, there will be no appeal to a higher court, which means the soundness of the rest of the judgement will not immediately be tested.

Ref: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18793842

A Vancouver-area man in Canada who sexually mutilated his four-year-old son on the kitchen floor after a religious awakening faces more than a decade in jail after being convicted of aggravated assault.

The father, referred to as DJW in court documents to protect the identity of his son, performed the botched operation on April 2, 2007 after researching the procedure on the internet. He had sexually mutilated himself just a few years earlier, and required stitches as well as treatment for an infected penis.

DJW was convicted in 2009 of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and sentenced to 12 months in prison, but that decision was thrown out by the B.C. Court of Appeal. A trio of appeal court judges ruled that the perpetrator should be convicted on the more severe charge of aggravated assault, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in jail, as well as assault with a weapon.

According to court documents, the father "changed his world view" after the birth of his son and began to adhere to the laws of the Old Testament. He describes his religion as "of the Abrahamic faith," similar to Judaism in some ways, but not all.

In 2007, he decided that he needed to remove his son's foreskin in time for Passover, and consulted with two rabbis and four doctors on the procedure. The doctors told him the operation could not be done without a general anesthetic, which they could not justify for such a young child.

Frustrated, the dad tried to register in a course that trained mohels (Jew male sexual mutilator) to perform male sexual mutilation, but learned that only doctors would be allowed in.

And so, DJW decided to perform the procedure himself, resolving that he could not live in the same house with a boy with normal genitals. He told his young son that it would be "a way of unifying the family and being a family in God," according to the original court decision.

He gave the little boy a teacup full of homemade honey wine, then laid him down on top of a towel and some garbage bags and made two slices in the foreskin, using a wooden cutting board for support.

To stop the bleeding, he applied something called Wonder Dust, a powder used to treat the wounds of racehorses. The Wonder Dust label warns that it is "not for human use. For veterinary use only."

The boy's mother was at home at the time of the sexual mutilation, but she suffers from a serious brain injury sustained during a car crash. She testified that she knew about the sexual mutilation, but was unable to inspect her son after the procedure because she could not stand the sight of blood.

The next night, while the little boy lay in pain at home, the father travelled to Abbotsford for a traditional Passover celebration. The congregants killed a lamb, ate it and then burned the remains while they drank wine.

A few days later, a social worker arrived at the family home with police in tow after receiving a tip about the sexual mutilation. DJW was read his Charter rights and the little boy was taken to BC Children's Hospital.

The pediatricians who examined him found his penis coated with what appeared to be hardened ash, which would not wash off and had to be removed with scissors. An experienced doctor completed the operation, and the boy and his older sister were removed from their family home and sent to live with their grandparents.

During the appeal process, the father contested his criminal negligence conviction, but that bid was denied.

Ref: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/dad-faces-jail-for-botched-circumcision-of-4-year-old-1.743928

In March 2017, an Eritrean asylum seeker woman in Israel faces 14 years in jail after sexually mutilating her four-year-old son, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz. The 37-year-old mother sexually mutilated her son herself at her home in March 2016 and was charged for child abuse and grievous bodily harm in Israeli court.

The woman, referred to as ‘A’ in Israeli courts claims she was unaware she was committing crime as she used to believe as carrying out “male sexual mutilation” is not illegal in her north African home country.

The mother took her son to nursery school three days after the incident, and asked him to lower his trousers so she could explain what happened to the teacher. The teacher, who noticed he allegedly had a limp and was injured, alerted authorities. He was taken to hospital and handed over to foster care the same day. Authorities went to A’s home and took away her two daughters. Police charged her with interfering with an officer in the line of duty as she physically resisted.

Ref 1: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/circumcision-child-abuse-charge-israel-jewish-eritrean-tradition-legal-case-asylum-seeker-a7662636.html

Ref 2: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.780711

Just like the many people believe as male sexual mutilation is not a crime, for example the above Eritrean woman, many people, in the countries where female sexual mutilation is prevalent, believe as female sexual mutilation is also not a crime.

For example, a mother in Ivory Coast who was been convicted for sexually mutilating her daughter said as she had not known it was against the law.

A mother who took her four-year-old daughter to be sexually mutilated was sentenced to one year in prison in the north of the Ivory Coast, where such convictions are rare.

The sentence is the lowest possible under Ivorian law.

“This is a warning,” said prosecutor Hamed Diomande.

Despite efforts by aid workers to raise awareness, he said, “you continue to sexually mutilate your children”.

“The next time, the punishment will be heavier,” he continued.

Female sexual mutilation is a “tradition”, one of the defendants said in court, saying they had not known it was against the law.

Ref: South African newspaper “The Herald” - http://www.heraldlive.co.za/news/world/2015/03/26/mother-jailed-circumcision-4-year-old-daughter-ivory-coast/

So the reason many people believe as male sexual mutilation is not a crime is same as many Africans believe as female sexual mutilation is not a crime.

Sexual mutilation: Sexual mutilation is cutting off or irreversible damage to private parts of a person.

“Sexual mutilation” differs from “Mutilation”.

Difference between “Mutilation” and “Sexual mutilation”: Mutilation is cutting off or irreversible damage to any body part of a person. Sexual mutilation is cutting off or irreversible damage to private parts of a person. So the difference between “Mutilation” and “Sexual mutilation” is that “Sexual mutilation” not only involves “Mutilation”, it also involves an “Aggravated Sexual assault”.

“Aggravated Sexual assault” differs from “Sexual assault”.

Difference between “Sexual assault” and “Aggravated sexual assault”: When a sexual assault is committed, the victim experiences sexual violence but the victim is not physically harmed and it doesn’t usually require medical attention. But when an aggravated sexual assault is committed, the victim not only experiences sexual violence, the victim is also physically harmed causing a permanent and irreversible damage to the victim’s body and it usually requires medical attention.

Sexual mutilation isn’t necessarily to be mutilation of genital organs. Mutilation of genital organs, breasts or any recognized private parts is a sexual mutilation. For example, “Breast ironing” is a practice of “sexual mutilation” even though it’s not associated with the victim’s genitals, but with breasts.

Breast ironing:

Breast ironing, also known as breast flattening, is the pounding and massaging of a pubescent girl's breasts, using hard or heated objects, to try to make them stop developing or disappear. It is typically carried out by the girl's mother who will say she is trying to protect the girl from sexual harassment and rape, to prevent early pregnancy that would tarnish the family name, or to allow the girl to pursue education rather than be forced into early marriage. It is mostly practiced in parts of Cameroon, where boys and men may think that girls whose breasts have begun to grow are ready for sex. Some reports suggest that it has spread to the Cameroonian diaspora, for example to that in Britain. The most widely used implement for breast ironing is a wooden pestle normally used for pounding tubers. Other tools used include leaves, bananas, coconut shells, grinding stones, ladles, spatulas, and hammers heated over coals.

Breast ironing is practiced in all ten regions of Cameroon and has also been reported across West and Central Africa, in Benin, Chad, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea-Conakry, Kenya, Togo and Zimbabwe. Breast "sweeping" has been reported in South Africa. All of Cameroon's 200 ethnic groups engage in breast ironing, with no known relation to religion, socio-economic status, or any other identifier. A June 2006 survey by the German development agency GIZ of more than 5,000 Cameroonian girls and women between the ages of 10 and 82 estimated that nearly one in four had undergone breast ironing, corresponding to four million girls. The survey also reported that it is most commonly practiced in urban areas, where mothers fear their children could be more exposed to sexual abuse. Incidence is as high as 53 percent in the Cameroon's southeastern region of Littoral. Compared with Cameroon's Christian and animist south, breast ironing is less common in the Muslim north, where only 10 percent of women are affected. Some hypothesize that this is related to the practice of early marriage, which is more common in the North, making early sexual development irrelevant or even preferable.

Breast ironing is extremely painful and can cause tissue damage. There have been no medical studies on its effects. However, medical experts warn it might contribute toward breast cancer, cysts and depression, and perhaps interfere with breastfeeding later. Other possible side-effects reported by GIZ include breast infections, the formation of abscesses, malformed breasts and the eradication of one or both breasts. The practice ranges dramatically in its severity, from using heated leaves to press and massage the breasts, to using a scalding grinding stone to crush the budding gland. Due to the range of this activity, health consequences vary from benign to acute.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_ironing

Male sexual mutilation is a sexual offence: Male Sexual Mutilation is not only a sexual assault, it's an “aggravative sexual assault”.

Though the perpetrators of male sexual mutilation and female sexual mutilation doesn't do this in order to satisfy their sexual urge, it's a clear case of aggravated sexual assault. Let's clarify this with the examples of "strip search" and "body cavity search".

Sometimes, the law enforcement personnels search for drugs and other illegal substances in the suspected person’s body by stripping him/her. It's called strip search. In a body cavity search, the law enforcement personnels also search inside body cavity such as vagina, anus of the suspected person. Despite the availability of technologies such as full body scanner, law enforcement personnels still continue this offensive practice. Strip search and body cavity search are often performed by law enforcement personnel of the same gender of the recipient, means a female for a female, a male for a male. So the perpetrator does not perform strip search or body cavity search with a view to satisfy her/his sexual urge. But despite this, strip search and body cavity search are clear cases of sexual assault.

So, forcibly stripping a person is enough for the offence to be a sexual assault. In a male sexual mutilation or a female sexual mutilation case, the victim is forcibly stripped and his/her private parts is forcibly cut off. And these are clear cases of aggravated sexual assault.

This is very important to note that unlike United States, male sexual mutilation is not performed on infant boys in rest of the countries in the world. In many Muslim countries, African and Asian countries, male sexual mutilation is performed on older boys. Almost no boy want to get his private parts cut off. And the boys are held down, forcibly stripped and forcibly sexually mutilated then.

Attaching some video evidences here (videos found on Youtube with search keywords such as "Khatna videos" and "Circumcision videos")-

Video evidence 1 – Forced sexual mutilation of a teenage Muslim girl in Egypt by a medical doctor in hospital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd6jmf_O4j0

Video evidence 2 – Forced sexual mutilation of Muslim boy in home in Asia by illiterate traditional operator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkyjZ1kTNU0&t=6s

Video evidence 3 – Forced sexual mutilation of child/teen boys in Africa by illiterate local operators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvW2b9ujdWo&t=1s

Video evidence 4: Video of forced sexual mutilation being taken against the wishes of the Indian boy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWoUHZ_gX0Q

Video evidence 5: Forced sexual mutilation of an Indian boy (boy screaming loud in extreme pain, but everybody surrounding is laughing, having fun): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISXDzw3DN5I

Though any person who thinks male sexual mutilation is ok may be surprised to know about female sexual mutilation and surprised to watch female sexual mutilation videos, now upon a closer look at all these videos, is there any difference between “Female sexual mutilation” and “Male sexual mutilation”?

The above videos are disturbing. Voices of the boys are clear. Attacks on them are brutal. Anybody in a civilized society will be shocked to watch these videos. There's nothing more tragic than a child is experiencing cruel and degrading aggravated sexual assault from his parents itself.

Lots of male sexual mutilation videos have been uploaded to Youtube.com (largest video sharing site) and new videos are being uploaded everyday.

In Video 4, the boy who was being forcibly sexually mutilated requested his family members not to take video of the violence. A female family member promised not to take video of the offence. But actually they filmed the entire operation of the offence and uploaded the video of their bloody, gory crime to Youtube.com (largest video sharing site). Even though it’s illegal to upload such video of a child in internet, they made it clear that they are not afraid of law or court.

About the “Video 2”, the title of the above video in Youtube is “Funny Khatna 2016”. In Islam, “Khatna” means “Sexual mutilation”. And for “UBAID UR REHMAN”, a fundamentalist Muslim, the uploader of the video, the screaming of the boy during his un-anesthesized sexual mutilation was so funny. So he titled the video as “Funny Khatna 2016”.

Often in a sexual mutilation case, we see a boy is screaming and people surrounding him are laughing. For example, in video 5, we see a boy is screaming loud in extreme pain during his sexual mutilation, but everybody surrounding him is laughing and having fun with this.

Forced male sexual mutilation for religious reasons is a religious freedom violation:

Forced male sexual mutilation for religious reasons is a religious freedom violation. A child may not want to follow the same religion as his parents follow. By permanently and irreversibly altering the child's genitals, the parents have robbed the freedom of religion of the child. And it's a case of religious freedom violation.

Male sexual mutilation is as harmful as female sexual mutilation (except female sexual mutilation type III):

Male Sexual Mutilation is as harmful as female sexual mutilation in it’s violence and consequences. Because both female sexual mutilation and male sexual mutilation eliminates the major erogenous zone of the victim’s genitals. The major erogenous zone in female genitals is the clitoral glans. And the major erogenous zone in males is the foreskin. Hence, mutilation of foreskin is analogous to mutilation of clitoral glans itself. Many believes as foreskin is not analogous to clitoral glans and rather penile glans is analogous to clitoral glans, which is a misconception. Removal of all external female genitalia is not analogous to removal of all external male genitalia. If a girl gets all of her external female genitalia, which includes clitoral glans, clitoral hood, labia, cut off, she will still be able to have sex. However, if a boy gets all his external genitalia cut off, which includes his entire penis, he will not be able to have sex at all. So the penile body, which is the vital male sex organ is not analogous to female clitoris. Therefore, injury to penile body is not analogous to injury to clitoris, and is rather analogous to injury to vagina, which is the vital sex organ in females. So mutilation of penile glans is not analogous to mutilation of clitoral glans (if that was so, the mutilation of entire clitoris would be analogous to mutilation of entire penis). Rather, any injury to the penile body, which is the vital sex organ in males, is directlty analogous to an injury to vagina in females, wghich is the vital female sex organ.

The functions of the foreskin is same as functions of the clitoral glans. Clitoral glans enhances sexual pleasure of the woman during sexual activity. And foreskin does the same job in men. Like clitoral glans is the major erogenous zone in female genitals, foreskin is the major erogenous zone in male genitals. In fact foreskin contains 2.5 times as many nerve endings as the clitoral glans does. Foreskin contains 20000 nerve endings compared to clitoral glans which contains 8000 nerve endings only. Foreskin itself contains 20000 nerve endings out of 24000 total nerve endings of the penis, which means the foreskin contains 83% nerve endings of the penis. Foreskin contains all the 5 most sensitive parts of the penis. Furthermore, foreskin contains the frenulum (which is called the male G-spot) and ridged bad, 2 more highly sensitive and highly specialized parts of the penis. In fact, according to a medical study on human penis by National Organization on Circumcision Information and Resources Center, United States and Michigan State University, United States, the most sensitive part of a foreskin mutilated penis is the mutilation scar.

Not to mention, in a female genital mutilation, not the entire structure of the clitoris is cut off. Only the clitoral glans is cut off as the rest of the clitoral body is expanded inside the women body. It is estimated by some that the female G spot, an erogenous zone inside vagina that helps women to achieve a vaginal orgasm is an extension of the clitoris.

In fact, foreskin has more functions than the clitoris.

Foreskin is more sensitive than the clitoral glans according to nerve density. Foreskin has the highest nerve concentration not only in the penis, but also in the entire human body. Having 8000 nerve endings, clitoral glans is in the 2nd position in the list when it comes to most sensitive body part.

In a male sexual mutilation, the penile glans, means the original penile body, means the vital male sex organ is harmed, where in a female sexual mutilation, the vagina, the vital female sex organ is unharmed. In a male sexual mutilation, one third to half of penile skin is eliminated. Now along with the foreskin, if rest of the skin from the penis is cut off, the entire penis will loss it’s sensitivity and normal functions and the person will not be able to enjoy sex any further. So it is very clear that mutilation of skin covering the penis amounts to harm to the original penile body as well, which is the vital sex organ in male. In a female sexual mutilation, the vagina, the vital female sex organ is unharmed. And it suggests as mutilation of foreskin causes more harm than mutilation of clitoral glans. So, foreskin mutilation appears to be more harmful than clitoral glans mutilation.

Foreskin has bunch of other functions such as natural lubrication, gliding mechanism, immune defense, etc. etc., all of which are harmed in a male sexual mutilation.

Female sexual mutilation is condemned by Americans and Europeans as a barbaric human rights violation. But somehow, when the exact same thing is done to boys by men in white coats, Americans consider it normal and “no big deal.”

The ritual Sexual Mutilation of healthy boys is arguably as bad as – and in some cases worse than – the majority of female sexual mutilation in Africa, with the exception of Type III Female Sexual Mutilation – which involves infubulation (stitching together the edges of the vulva to prevent sexual intercourse) – which accounts for 20% of all Female Sexual Mutilation cases.

Some studies try to prove that male sexual mutilation does not decrease sexual pleasure. Oh really! Foreskin is the major erogenous zone of male genitals holdings 83% nerve endings of the penis. Mutilation of foreskin eliminates all of the 5 most sensitive parts of the penis. Even the most sensitive part of a mutilated penis is unfortunately, the mutilation scar. Furthermore, male genital mutilation causes a drastical decrease in the moisture and sensitivity of the glans. After so much harm to erogenous tissue and the original glans penis as well, it's impossible that male genital mutilation should not decrease sexual pleasure.

Many studies have found a significant decrease in sexual pleasure in genitally mutilated men than normal men.

The “Gliding action” of foreskin stimulates both the male and the female. For normal males, the “Gliding action” of the foreskin is a major source of stimulation during intercourse due the presence of large number of nerves in foreskin. In fact, foreskin is the major erogenous zone in male genitals.

Taylor (2000) suggests that the gliding action, where it occurs, may stimulate the nerves of the ridged band, and speculates (2003) that the stretching of the frenulum by the rearward gliding action during penetration triggers ejaculation.

For female partners of normal males, the “gliding action” of foreskin provides a significant stimulation during intercourse and helps the woman to achieve orgasm.

O'Hara and O'Hara argue that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often. Without the foreskin's gliding action, they suggest, it can be more difficult for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.

Removal of the foreskin can lead to trauma of the penis (friction irritation) during masturbation due to the loss of the gliding action of the foreskin and greater friction, requiring artificial lubrication. During sex, the loss of gliding action is also thought to cause pain, dryness and trauma of the vagina.

A study showed that the loss of the foreskin resulted in decreased masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment. The gliding action of the foreskin is an aid to masturbation.

The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology states that the foreskin has numerous sexual functions and that "during sexual activity the foreskin is a functional and highly sensitive, erogenous structure, capable of providing pleasure to its owner and his potential partners.”

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) states that many sexologists view the foreskin as "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role 'in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation'.”

A National Survey in Denmark shows as male sexual mutilation causes difficulty reaching orgasm in the female partners of sexually mutilated males. And male sexual mutilation also results in sexual function difficulties in men. The study was published by the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology in 2011.

The national survey in Denmark, where about 5% of men are sexually mutilated, examined associations of male sexual mutilation with a range of sexual measures in both sexes. Sexually mutilated men were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties, and women with sexually mutilated husbands more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfillment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties, and painful sexual intercourse.

According to a study in Belgium, male sexual mutilation significantly decreases sexual pleasure of males, causes lower orgasm intensity, causes desensitization of glans and causes unusual sensation during intercourse such as burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis and discomfort and pain, unusual sensations and numbness of the penile shaft in males.

The unusual sensations felt during sexual activity in a foreskin mutilated penis is often due to the presence of scar tissue in the foreskin mutilated penis.

In the Belgian study, in a large cohort of men, based on self-assessment, that the foreskin has erogenous sensitivity. It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the glans mucosa in normal penis, which means that after male sexual mutilation, genital sensitivity is lost. For the glans penis, sexually mutilated men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of sexually mutilated men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. Also sexually mutilated men reported their glans to be less sensitive than normal men. This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. In the study, there is strong evidence on the erogenous sensitivity of the foreskin.

According to one man who was sexually mutilated as an adult, “Sex without a foreskin is like sight without color. Those who have not seen in color cannot appreciate what is lost.” – Ref: http://www.circumcision.org/satisfied.htm

The many attempts by mutilated men to restore their foreskin indicates the importance of foreskin in sexual function (Royal Dutch Medical Association). Men who have successfully restored their foreskin, though they have not got the functions of their original foreskin back are satisfied with the result. For a solution of this issue, a non profit organization – “Foregen” is researching on “Foreskin regeneration” with regenerative medicine that will give a mutilated man his original foreskin back. Foregen is expected to be able to regenerate foreskin successfully by 2019.

Now, if cutting of foreskin does not decrease sexual pleasure, along with foreskin, cutting off the rest of the penile skin of a man should not decrease sexual pleasure as well. Foreskin is more functional and more specialized than the rest of the penile skin. Foreskin has a couple of functions that the rest of the penile skin doesn’t have. But there is no function that the rest of the penile skin has but the foreskin doesn’t have.

Furthermore, do we need to arrange randomized controlled trials to see whether foreskin mutilation decreases sexual pleasure or not? Absolutely not. It’s not a rocket science to understand that so much damage to male erogenous tissue should decrease sexual pleasure. Like it’s not a rocket science to understand that mutilating a girl’s clitoral glans will decrease her sexual pleasure. Will there also be randomized controlled trials on female sexual mutilation to prove whether or not female sexual mutilation decreases sexual pleasure where 5000 women be genitally mutilated by medical professionals and the sexual satisfication before and after mutilation will be reported?

Also the fact is not that genitally mutilated women do not enjoy sex at all. If they did not enjoy sex, they would not participate in sex. And we see African mutilated women themselves are promoting female sexual mutilation and forcing their daughters to undergo female sexual mutilation. If they felt that they have been mutilated, they would not promote female sexual mutilation and would not force their daughters to undergo female sexual mutilation. So the fact is that genitally mutilated persons believe that genital mutilation is good and only when it does not cut it is not good. It is a matter of belief.

And the reason an American man is promoting male sexual mutilation is same as an African woman is promoting female sexual mutilation.

So in the African randomized controlled trials, the persons who reported no difference in sexual pleasure after undergoing male sexual mutilation believe that male sexual mutilation is good and only when it does not cut, it is not good. They commented based on their beliefs. According to African tradition, male sexual mutilation is a passage to manhood and becoming adult from child. Many African believes that foreskin is a female element and men with normal genitals have a bi-exual nature. Male genital mutilation corrects the bi-sexuallity by painfully removing the foreskin. In many African society, a boy having normal genitals should be teased by others for having a female element. Also some African society considers clitoris to be an erectile male element and consider it to be removed. [All these are shown in the 3rd Youtube video, which is a part of a documentary on sexual mutilation practices in Africa by oddafrica.com]

So the African guys reported no difference in sexual pleasure after undergoing male sexual mutilation is because they believe that male sexual mutilation is good and only when it does not cut it is not good. Not to mention, in those randomized controlled trials, many guys reported increased sexual pleasure after undergoing male genital mutilation which is scientifically meaningless. If mutilation of foreskin does not decrease sexual pleasure and rather increases sexual pleasure, then along with foreskin, cutting off all the skin from the penis should further increase sexual pleasure. Why not? So should there also be randomized controlled trials where men will get all the skin on their penis removed to see whether it further increases sexual pleasure?

Also, should there also be randomized controlled trials on female sexual mutilation where 5000 women will be sexually mutilated and their sexual satisfication before and after sexual mutilation will be reported to prove whether female sexual mutilation actually decrease sexual pleasure in females or not.

We bet if these randomized controlled trials were undertaken in European developed countries, then the guys would not report no difference in sexual pleasure after undergoing male sexual mutilation.

Cutting off a healthy functional organ from a person’s body without any medical necessity for the purpose of medical study is in violation with the fundamental medical ethical principles. It violets the 1st medical ethical principle, “First do not harm”. And it violets next medical ethical principles as well. And mass mutilation of healthy functional organ of general people for the purpose of medical study is a serious criminal offense under existing law. The randomized controlled trial authors have committed a serious human rights abuse and a criminal offence.

Also why do the randomized controlled trial authors operate RCT in Africa? The persons participated in the randomized controlled trials were unemployed and they have been paid for participating in RCT+they received free medical care. Some paid volunteers are not representative of general population. And furthermore, if the benefits of male sexual mutilation is so instinctive, why was the rewards necessary? Why do the RCT authors pick up some African unemployed men who are in desperate need of money? Couldn’t the RCT authors operate the RCTs in any European developed country where advanced medical settings are available? Do the RCT authors consider poor African people as an expandable resource to be exploited?

Some previous studies found that medical circumcision led to little, if any, decrease in penile sensitivity, but Sorrells and his colleagues from National Organization of Circumcision Information and Resources Center say such findings are suspect because many are based on self-reports from men who were circumcised to correct medical problems. So their situation improved after medical circumcision. Reference: https://www.livescieHistory of male sexual mutilation: The origin of male sexual mutilation is not known with certainty. It has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility or fertility, as a means of reducing sexual pleasure, as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical, as a means of marking those of higher social status, as a means of humiliating enemies and slaves by symbolic castration, as a means of differentiating a mutilating group from their non-mutilating neighbors, as a means of discouraging masturbation or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors, as a means of removing "excess" pleasure, as a means of increasing a man's attractiveness to women, as a demonstration of one's ability to endure pain, or as a male counterpart to menstruation or the breaking of the hymen, or to copy the rare natural occurrence of a missing foreskin of an important leader,[ http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13541-shem ][ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494220 ] a way to repel demonesses, and as a display of disgust of the smegma produced by the foreskin.

Immerman et al. suggest that male sexual mutilation causes lowered sexual arousal of pubescent males, and hypothesize that this was a competitive advantage to tribes practising male sexual mutilation, leading to its spread.[ http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/immerman2/ ] Wilson suggests that male sexual mutilation reduces insemination efficiency, reducing a man's capacity for extra-pair fertilizations by impairing sperm competition. Thus, men who display this signal of sexual obedience may gain social benefits if married men are selected to offer social trust and investment preferentially to peers who are less threatening to their paternity.[ http://www.anth.uconn.edu/degree_programs/ecolevo/mgmarticle.pdf ] It is possible that male sexual mutilation arose independently in different cultures for different reasons.

In the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, male sexual mutilation was carried out by most pagan Arabian tribes and female sexual mutilation by some, and male sexual mutilation by Jews for religious reasons. This has also been attested by Al-Jahiz, as well as by Josephus.

Prophet Muhammad’s grandfather Abd-al-Muttalib sexually mutilated him when he was seven days old according to Arab tradition at that time. Many of his early disciples were sexually mutilated to symbolize their inclusion within the emerging Islamic community. Some accounts report that Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium, had referred to Muhammad as the "leader of the sexually mutilated people". This way, a pre-Islamic Arab tradition like sexual mutilation that has nothing to do with Islam found it’s way into Islam.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_(circumcision) nce.com/1624-study-circumcision-removes-sensitive-parts.html

This is very important to keep in mind that despite being an Islamic website, Quranicpath.com is strongly opposing male sexual mutilation as Quran neither suggests nor tolerates sexual mutilation or any kind of body alteration. There is not a single mention of sexual mutilation of either sex in Quran. Any kind of body alteration is strictly prohibited in Quran, and below are some notable verses of Quran on this matter-

"We have indeed created man in the 'best of moulds'." (Qur'an 95:4)

"Allah is the One who made the Earth a habitat for you, and the sky as a structure, and He designed you, and has perfected your design." (Qur'an 40:64)

"Allah created the heavens and the Earth for a true purpose, He designed you, and has perfected your design. You will all return to Him." (Qur'an 64:3)

"The work of Allah who has 'perfected everything' (He created)." (Qur'an 27:88)

"The One Who has 'perfected everything' He has created and began the creation of human beings from clay" (Qur'an 32:7)

It is said by the people of the Tawrah (religious book of Jews) and also believed by Muslims that, “Allah commanded prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) to sexually mutilate his son Ismail and all those who lived with him of slaves and other, and so he did. The age of Ismail was 13 years. This was to fulfil the command of Allah. It shows that male sexual mutilation was obligatory upon him and therefore obligatory on all men.”

Muslims believes the above story because of this “Hadith (one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad those were collected 100-200 years after prophet Muhammad’s death)”-

The prophet Muhammad said: "The Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) sexually mutilated himself when he was eighty years old and he sexually mutilated himself with an axe." (Related by Bukhari, Muslim & Ahmad.)

And according to Quran, "Then We inspired you: 'Follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright in Faith'." (Qur'an 16:123)

As a result, Muslims considers male sexual mutilation to be an obligatory Islamic practice. Some other “Hadiths (one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad those were collected 100-200 years after prophet Muhammad’s death)” those influenced male sexual mutilation among Muslims include-

-Note that the rule of hadith dictate that if it is not mentioned specifically or if the pronouns do not point to a certain gender, then the hadith is valid for both sexes. Hence, the following hadiths are applicable for both men and women. Sahih al-Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 72, Number 779: Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard the Prophet saying. "Five practices are characteristics of the Fitra (primordial human nature): Sexual mutilation (both for males and females), shaving the pubic hair, cutting the moustaches short, clipping the nails, and depilating the hair of the armpits."[Citation]

-Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167 Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Sexual mutilation is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women."

However, according to quranicpath.com, the claim that Allah commanded prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) to sexually mutilate himself and/or his son, slaves has no bias according to Quranic teachings.

Because sexual mutilation of prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) is not mentioned anywhere in Quran. The Quran deals extensively with prophet Abraham (Ibrahim), his name alone is mentioned 67 times in Quran. Yet the Quran says nothing of him being sexually mutilated or being commanded to do so. Rather it was his faith in Allah and devotion to him alone which is stressed throughout the Quran and which is to be followed. The Quran deals with Prophet Abraham’s (Ibrahim) construction of the Kaba (a building at the center of Islam's most sacred mosque, Al-Masjid Al-Ḥarām, in Mecca, Hejaz, Saudi Arabia) and other matters - but does not say he was told to cut off a part of his private parts.

[ Quranicpath.com mentions as Allah has not commanded male sexual mutilation, but Satan (the devil angel) did.

The Satan pledges to make mankind remove body-parts that Allah has created. Allah tells us this information in the following Verse:

"(Satan said), 'I will lead them (mankind) astray and fill them with false hopes. I will command them and they will cut off cattle's ears. I will command them and they will change Allah's creation.' Anyone who takes Satan as his protector in place of Allah has clearly lost everything. He makes promises to them and fills them with false hopes. But what Satan promises them is nothing but delusion." (Qur'an 4:119-120)

As can be seen, the Satan pledges to make people change what Allah has originally created. The fact that Satan uses the Cattle's ears as an example does not at all mean his scheming to change Allah's creation will be limited to this. This is because Satan's goal is to make people change what Allah originally creates, not the act of cutting off cattle's ears which is only a means to the objective - he can take other means too. We know this from his statement, "I will command them and they will change Allah's creation", where "Allah's creation" includes all things Allah creates, including a baby's penis.

Having made the pledge, Satan must find ways to make people carry out his desires. With regards to the Satan's ways in getting his desires across, Allah reveals to the believers that Satan will inspire words and sayings outside of the Qur'an, such as hearsay and tales, to communicate his message:

"We assigned to every prophet an enemy, Satan human and jinn to inspire fancy words to one another in order to deceive - Had your Lord willed so, they would not have done it, so leave them and their fabrications". (Qur'an 6:112) ]

Historical oppositions of male sexual mutilation and battles on male sexual mutilation issue:

The ancient Greeks prized the foreskin and disapproved of the Jewish custom of male sexual mutilation.[ http://www.cirp.org/library/history/hodges2/ ] King Antiochus IV of Syria, the occupying power of Judea in 170 BCE, outlawed male sexual mutilation on penalty of death,[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Maccabees ] one of the grievances leading to the Maccabean Revolt.[ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=201057 ]

According to the Historia Augusta, the Roman emperor Hadrian issued a decree banning male sexual mutilation in the empire,[ http://www.cirp.org/library/history/hodges2/ ] and some modern scholars argue that this was a main cause of the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt of 132 CE.

Wikigender already has an article titled “Male Genital Mutilation” and they have defined “Male Genital Mutilation” as-

“Male genital mutilation (MGM), comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external male genitalia or other injury to the male genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons.”

Wikigender is a project initiated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Development Centre to facilitate the exchange and improve the knowledge on gender equality-related issues around the world.

According to Wikigender, cutting off foreskin is not the only type of Male Genital Mutilation, but the types of male genital mutilation are as follows-

“Type I – excision or injury of part or all of the skin and specialized mucosal tissues of the penis including the prepuce and frenulum.

Type II – excision or injury to the glans (glandectomy) and/or penis shaft, (penectomy) along with Type I MGM. Any procedure that interferes with reproductive or sexual function in the adult male.

Type III – excision or destruction of the testes (castration, orchidectomy) with or without Type II MGM.

Type IV – unclassified: includes pricking, piercing or incision of the prepuce, glans, scrotum or other genital tissue; cutting and suturing of the prepuce over the glans (infibulation); slitting open the urethra along the ventral surface of the penis (sub-incision); slitting open the foreskin along its dorsal surface (super-incision); severing the frenulum; stripping the skin from the shaft of the penis; introducing corrosive or scalding substances onto the genital area; any other procedure which falls under the definition of MGM given above.”

Wikigender has used some of the following references for the article.

Male Genital Mutilation- An Adaptation to Sexual Conflict: Cornell. Ref: http://www.anth.uconn.edu/degree_programs/ecolevo/mgmarticle.pdf MGM Policy Statement: MGM Bill - http://mgmbill.org/mgmpolicy.pdf Male Genital Mutilation - A Feminist Study of a Muted Gender Issue. Ref: http://www.noharmm.org/muted.htm The Geography of Genital Mutilations - http://www.noharmm.org/geography.htm

Among the above references, this is very important to note that, the article “Male genital mutilation: an adaptation to sexual conflict” has been indexed in Google scholar. It’s Google Scholar link is: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513807001341 And it’s doi link is https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.11.008

[You will see parts of the article (that includes the definition of “Male Genital Mutilation”) for free, but in order to download full article you will be asked to purchase the article. But the part of the article that you can see for free, covers the definition of “Male Genital Mutilation”. If you like to read the full article for free, then, as mentioned above, you should visit the http://www.anth.uconn.edu/degree_programs/ecolevo/mgmarticle.pdf link.]

The “Male genital mutilation: an adaptation to sexual conflict” article was published by “Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA” in 2007.

And according to the article, the definition of “Male Genital Mutilation” is as follows-

“Male genital mutilation (MGM) is any permanent modification of the external genitalia that involves the ablation of tissue and is normative for all males within a society (Murdock, 1967).”

The article continues as, “MGM is present in a substantial minority of pre-industrial human societies and predates recorded history (Dunsmuir & Gordon, 1999). The form of the prescribed mutilation varies among societies…………………………………………………………..”

Now I have been providing respective references to the information I have been posting and I don’t think I am writing any original research here. I do hope the above references to the definitions of male genital mutilation is enough to call non-medical foreskin mutilation as "Male sexual mutilation" or "Male genital mutilation". I do hope you will make necessary corrections.

Neutrality of my post: In my entire post, I haven’t wrote anything in favour of male sexual mutilation. You see, male sexual mutilation is a violence. It's not a medical procedure, it's a criminal procedure. And there is nothing I could write in favour of a violence. If I can’t write anything in favour of female sexual mutilation, in favour of rape and sexual assault, I can’t write anything in favour of male sexual mutilation either. I do hope writing against a violence is no violation of Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.

As United Nations said, I am repeating again, “No violence against children is justifiable. All violence against children is preventable”. I do hope you administrator sir will take necessary corrective action.

Harms of Male Sexual mutilation:

1. Loss of 83% nerve endings of human penis. And loss of the most sensitive part in the entire human body according to nerve density. Foreskin alone contains 20000 nerve endings out of 24000 total nerve endings in the penis and compared to 8000 nerve endings in the clitoral glans.

2. Loss of major erogenous zone of the human penis (including all the 5 most sensitive parts of a normal penis located on the foreskin): This is very important to note that the most sensitive part of a foreskin mutilated penis is located on the mutilation scar itself, as it's where the nerves that went to the foreskin are truncated which is less sensitive than any of the 5 most sensitive parts in a normal penis, all of which are eliminated in a male sexual mutilation.

In 1999, a study published in “British Journal of Urology” by C.J. COLD and J.R. TAYLOR confirmed that "The foreskin is primary erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function.”

In April 2007, a study by Morris Sorrells and colleagues from the “National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center” and “Michigan State University” published in “British Journal of Urology International” further confirmed that all the 5 most sensitive parts of a normal penis are located on the foreskin. And even the most sensitive part of a foreskin mutilated penis is located on the mutilation scar, that is less sensitive than any of the 5 most sensitive parts of the normal penis.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia has written that the foreskin is "composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue."

3. Loss of normal mechanism of mustrabation and loss of normal mechanism of sexual intercourse which is known as “gliding action” of the foreskin: Male sexual mutilation eliminates one third to half of the total skin of the penis. For a normal man, the foreskin retracts automatically upon erection of the penis, exposing the highly sensitive glans. During sexual intercourse, the foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina non-abrasively inside its own sheath of self lubricating, movable skin, and this mechanism of foreskin is called “Gliding action”. Here’s a dynamic photo showing “Gliding action” of foreskin during intercourse: http://www.quranicpath.com/images/retrac-anim3.gif

According to the Wikipedia article “Mustrabation”, for normal males, stimulation of the penis typically comes from the "pumping" of the foreskin, whereby the foreskin is held and slid up and down over the glans, which, depending on foreskin length, is completely or partially covered and then uncovered in a rapid motion. The outer foreskin glides smoothly over the inner foreskin. The glans itself may widen and lengthen as the stimulation continues, becoming slightly darker in colour, while the gliding action of the foreskin reduces friction.

For sexually mutilated males, on whom the glans is mostly or completely uncovered, trying this technique creates more direct contact between the hand and the glans. To avoid friction, irritation and soreness from this resulting friction, some may prefer to use a personal lubricant, masturbation cream or saliva.

Sexually mutilated males usually tries to achieve a partial stimulation during mustrabation by pumping of the remaining skin on the penile shaft, they don’t even touch the glans during mustrabation. And due to lack of skin and tightness of skin on their penis, they can’t move the skin as much as a normal person can.

This is why male sexual mutilation has historically been used in United States to control boy’s sexuality. It has been used as a mustrabation prevention measure. Mustrabation was thought to be a cause of fatal diseases such as paralysis, diabatis, etc. So, it’s very clear that how male sexual mutilation is invented in United States to degrade a person’s normal sexual functions.

The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology states that the foreskin "contributes to the natural functioning of the penis during sexual activity."

4. Loss of “Frenulum” and “Ridged band” (among the most sensitive erogenous zones of the human penis): The frenulum is an elastic band of tissue under the glans penis that connects the foreskin to the vernal mucosa, and helps contract the foreskin over the glans. Here’s an illustration of human penis showing the “frenulum”: The frenulum and the associated tissue delta on the underside of the penis below the corona has been described in sexuality textbooks as "very reactive" and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft". The "underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona" is a "source of distinct pleasure".

Crooks and Baur observe that two extremely sensitive specific locations that many men find particularly responsive to stimulation are the corona, and the frenulum. Repeated stimulation of this structure will cause orgasm and ejaculation in some men.

In men with spinal cord injury preventing sensations from reaching the brain, the frenulum just below the glans can be stimulated to produce orgasm and peri-ejaculatory response.

Not to mention, frenulum is called male G-spot. In females, the G-spot is an erogenous zone inside the vagina which helps women to achieve a vaginal orgasm.

In a male sexual mutilation, the frenulum is completely removed or significantly harmed, making it unable to functionate anymore.

The ridged band is a band of highly innervated wrinkly skin toward the end of the foreskin. The term ridged is used to describe the area instead of the more commonly used term "wrinkled". Here’s a photo of an original normal erect penis (with the foreskin automatically retracted) showing the “ridged band”: The foreskin, including the ridged band, is a specific erogenous zone. Taylor (1996) postulates that "the ridged band with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves, is primarily sensory tissue". He hypothesizes (2007) that Meissner's corpuscles in the ridged band are adapted to detect stretch: Work in progress indicates that retraction and stretching of this accordion-like structure triggers reflex contraction of bulbocavernosus and bulbospongiosus.

Taylor theorizes that the main function of the ridged band is to trigger sexual reflexes. In a letter to the editor of BJU International, 2007, Taylor writes: Initial study (J.R.T. unpublished) indicates that the real importance of the ridged band to sexual intercourse lies in an ability to trigger a reflex contraction of muscles responsible for ejaculation.

In the Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2007, Taylor states: Both glans and foreskin contribute to the single mucocutaneous junctional zone of the penis and it is possible that these apparently dissimilar structures in fact share similar functions related more to sexual reflexes than to touch perception.

Taylor's view is that "almost certainly, removal of the prepuce and its ridged band distorts penile reflexogenic functions but exactly how and to what extent still remains to be seen". More recent research has demonstrated that the clinically important bulbocavernosus reflex is absent in 73% of sexually mutilated men ostensibly due to the removal of fine-touch nerve endings in the ridged band.

Most or all of the ridged band is removed in male sexual mutilation.

A paper in The Austrian Journal of Health Psychology (2002) states as, "The complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings.”

5. A drastical desensitization and demoisturization of exposed glans in a foreskin mutilated penis due to temperature and constant friction of the exposed glans with clothing: Because of chafing and abrasion from clothing, the glans develops some extra layers of skin on it, which is called “Keratinization”. Thickening of the glans results in drastical loss of sensitivity and moisture of the glans. Sexually mutilated men have a desensitized and dried up glans. A microscopic view of a glans of a foreskin mutilated penis is given below- The image shows as, “The surface of foreskin mutilated glans bears resemblance with the dried, cracked and thirsty desert land with almost no sensitivity left".

According to a study by Morris Sorrells and colleagues from the “National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center” and “Michigan State University” published in the April 2007 in British Journal of Urology International, “The glans of a foreskin mutilated penis is significantly less sensitive than the glans of a normal penis.”

Royal Australian College of Physitians (2010) states as, “The foreskin has two main functions. Firstly it exists to protect the glans penis. Secondly the foreskin is a primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis……….. The potential harms of Male Sexual Mutilation include contravention of individual rights, loss of choice, loss of function, procedural and psychological complications.”

German Pediatric association (2012) states as, “The male foreskin is a part of the skin of the organ and fulfills important functions that protect the very sensitive glans.”

In a normal penis, the foreskin retracts automatically upon the erection of the penis exposing the highly sensitive glans and the man gets intense stimulation from the glans during sexual activity. But this is not the case for a person with mutilated penis having a desensitized, demoisturized and dried up glans.

6. Loss of natural lubrication of the human penis and increased risk of experiencing “pain during intercourse” for the female partner: Foreskin produces natural lubrication and the gliding action of the foreskin reduces friction during intercourse. Firstly, male sexual mutilation causes excessive friction during intercourse due to lack of natural lubrication system of the penis which can cause “dyspareunia” (painful sexual intercourse) for the female partner.

Furthermore, a foreskin mutilated penis causes vaginal dryness, accelerating painful sexual intercourse for the female partner even further. With a foreskin mutilated penis, The coronal ridge is constantly exposed. On the outstroke, it scrapes the lubrication outside, exacerbated by the fact that the foreskin mutilated penis takes long elongated strokes that withdraws far too much. The lubrication which comes outside is exposed to air, which allows it to evaporate into the environment causing vaginal dryness. Here’s the photo of the process of vaginal drying during intercourse with a sexually mutilated male partner: A study by psychologists Bensley & Boyle (2003) reported that vaginal dryness can be a problem when the male partner is sexually mutilated.

Boyle & Bensley (2001) reported that the lack of a foreskin in the male partner produces symptoms similar to those of female arousal disorder. The authors hypothesized that the gliding action possibly involved intercourse with a normal partner might help prevent the loss of vaginal lubrication.

According to a study in Denmark, women with sexually mutilated partners are three times more likely to experience pain during intercourse than women with normal partners. “The normal penis is much glossier, a more velvety feel,” says Paduch. “So for women who aren’t lubricating well, they have much less discomfort having sex with a guy who has a normal penis.” He adds that guys who have their foreskin intact require lubricant far less frequently during sex and masturbation, since the skin of their penis in naturally slicker.

7. Incomplete sexual fulfilment both for men and women: The “Gliding action” of foreskin stimulates both the male and the female. For normal males, the “Gliding action” of the foreskin is a major source of stimulation during intercourse due the presence of large number of nerves in foreskin. In fact, foreskin is the major erogenous zone in male genitals.

Taylor (2000) suggests that the gliding action, where it occurs, may stimulate the nerves of the ridged band, and speculates (2003) that the stretching of the frenulum by the rearward gliding action during penetration triggers ejaculation.

For female partners of normal males, the “gliding action” of foreskin provides a significant stimulation during intercourse and helps the woman to achieve orgasm.

O'Hara and O'Hara argue that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often. Without the foreskin's gliding action, they suggest, it can be more difficult for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.

Removal of the foreskin can lead to trauma of the penis (friction irritation) during masturbation due to the loss of the gliding action of the foreskin and greater friction, requiring artificial lubrication. During sex, the loss of gliding action is also thought to cause pain, dryness and trauma of the vagina.

A study showed that the loss of the foreskin resulted in decreased masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment. The gliding action of the foreskin is an aid to masturbation.

The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology states that the foreskin has numerous sexual functions and that "during sexual activity the foreskin is a functional and highly sensitive, erogenous structure, capable of providing pleasure to its owner and his potential partners.”

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) states that many sexologists view the foreskin as "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role 'in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation'.”

A National Survey in Denmark shows as male sexual mutilation causes difficulty reaching orgasm in the female partners of sexually mutilated males. And male sexual mutilation also results in sexual function difficulties in men. The study was published by the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology in 2011.

The national survey in Denmark, where about 5% of men are sexually mutilated, examined associations of male sexual mutilation with a range of sexual measures in both sexes. Sexually mutilated men were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties, and women with sexually mutilated husbands more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfillment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties, and painful sexual intercourse.

According to a study in Belgium, male sexual mutilation significantly decreases sexual pleasure of males, causes lower orgasm intensity, causes desensitization of glans and causes unusual sensation during intercourse such as burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis and discomfort and pain, unusual sensations and numbness of the penile shaft in males.

The unusual sensations felt during sexual activity in a foreskin mutilated penis is often due to the presence of scar tissue in the foreskin mutilated penis.

In the Belgian study, in a large cohort of men, based on self-assessment, that the foreskin has erogenous sensitivity. It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the glans mucosa in normal penis, which means that after male sexual mutilation, genital sensitivity is lost. For the glans penis, sexually mutilated men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of sexually mutilated men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. Also sexually mutilated men reported their glans to be less sensitive than normal men. This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. In the study, there is strong evidence on the erogenous sensitivity of the foreskin.

According to one man who was sexually mutilated as an adult, “Sex without a foreskin is like sight without color. Those who have not seen in color cannot appreciate what is lost.” – Ref: http://www.circumcision.org/satisfied.htm

8. Loss of immune defense of human penis: The foreskin is the only immune defense of human penis against infections. Australian and New Zeland Journal of Public Health states as, “Langerhans cells in the inner foreskin secretes langerin, which is effective in killing numerous pathogens. Langerhans cells may also provide protection against HIV and other STIs, which may explain why genitally men are at greater risk of infection with some STIs, such as urethritis.” Journal of Public Health in Africa also states the same.

On March 4, 2007, world’s largest science journal “Nature” published the research letter "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV transmission by Langerhans cells in foreskin." One of the authors of the study, Teunis Geijtenbeek, said that "Langerin is able to scavenge viruses from the surrounding environment, thereby preventing infection" and "since generally all tissues on the outside of our bodies have Langerhans cells, we think that the human body is equipped with an antiviral defense mechanism, destroying incoming viruses."

Ref 1: http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm1541.html?foxtrotcallback=true Ref 2: Australian and New Zeland Journal of Public Health: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full Ref 3: Journal of Public Health in Africa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5345479/

9. An increased risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases: According to the Wikipedia article “Mustrabation”, “Removal of the foreskin can lead to trauma of the penis (friction irritation) during masturbation due to the loss of the gliding action of the foreskin and greater friction, requiring artificial lubrication. During sex, the loss of gliding action is also thought to cause pain, dryness and trauma of the vagina. The trauma and abrasions of the vagina can lead to easier entry of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV.”

A 1994 study published by International Journal of Epidemiology found that female partners of sexually mutilated males are at higher risk of being infected with HIV-1.

Male sexual mutilation can also result in sores and abrasions on the penis during sexual intercourse due to the presence of scar tissue on the penis. And the open sores can enable easier entry for HIV and STDs.

In 2009, a randomized controlled trial in Rakai, Uganda found that female partners of HIV infected sexually mutilated males have a 61% relative increased rate of getting HIV than female partners of HIV infected males with normal penis. Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19616720

Based on this study, Journal of Law and Medicine also stated in 2011 as, "In the Ugandan male-to-female trial, there appears to have been a 61% relative increase in HIV infection among female partners of HIV-positive sexually mutilated men." Ref: https://www.thewholenetwork.org/uploads/4/2/0/2/4202929/2011-12_jlm-boyle-hill.pdf and NCBI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006

Based on this study, South African Medical Journal stated as, "Further cause for concern is the confirmation of a preliminary report stating that women have an up to 60% increased cumulative risk of contracting HIV over the period of 24 months if their male partner is HIV positive and has been sexually mutilated." Ref: http://www.samj.org.za/index.php/samj/article/view/1811/2152

A study published in 2015 found that sexually mutilated men are more likely to transmit HIV to their female partners if they resume sexual intercourse prior to wound healing after getting sexually mutilated as adult. The study also mentions as, "in studies of current mass male sexual mutilation programs (by WHO), two-thirds of married men and a third of all men reported that they resumed sexual intercourse before their mutilation wounds had healed." Ref: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001820

10. Male sexual mutilation is often performed without anesthetic or with a local anesthetic that is ineffective at substantially reducing pain. It is important to also consider the effects of pain in sexually mutilated infants which continues to remain in effect even after the original event of mutilation (regardless of whether anesthesia is used), which is described as “severe” and “persistent”.

11. Male Sexual mutilation causes an irreversible psychological damage to the child:

● Male sexual mutilation clearly meets the clinical definition of trauma because it involves a violation of physical integrity. In fact, research has demonstrated that male sexual mutilation in childhood and adolescence shares many of the same psychological elements of childhood sexual abuse, such as physical pain, fear, loss of control, and the perception that the event is a form of punishment. Male sexual mutilation often produces symptoms which are very similar to those of childhood sexual abuse, including dissociation and the development of a negative body image.

● Male sexual mutilation in childhood and adolescence has significant negative psychological consequences. Following a traumatic event, many children experience anxiety, depression, and anger; and many others try to avoid and suppress these painful feelings. In addition, children often experience a debilitating loss of control that negatively affects their ability to regulate emotions and make sense of the traumatic experience.

● The psychological consequences of physical violence are even greater when they involve a child’s genitals. Sexually mutilated men experience more depressive symptoms, anxiety, and interpersonal difficulties than normal men. In a study of adults sexually mutilated in childhood, Hammond (1999) found that many men conceptualized their sexual mutilation experience as an act of violence, mutilation, or sexual assault. The sense of inadequacy, feelings of victimization, and violent sexual fantasies experienced during sexually mutilated boys’ adolescence are found to be both consciously and unconsciously linked to his experience with losing part of his penis (Kennedy, 1986). In a study examining the psychological effects of sexual mutilation on boys between four and seven years of age, Cansever (1965) used psychological testing to measure boys’ level of distress. The results of the study indicated that sexual mutilation was perceived as an aggressive attack on the body that left children feeling damaged and mutilated (Cansever, 1968). Cansever (1968) also noted that these boys experienced changes in body image (with many feeling smaller and incomplete), feelings of inadequacy and helplessness, as well as a tendency to withdraw psychologically.

● The Majority of Boys Sexually mutilated as Children and Adolescents Meet Diagnostic Criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

● Pain from sexual mutilation in infant boys (in many countries, it’s performed on infants) permanently alter the brain. Babies start to show behavioral changes within a few days.

The effects of pain on infants’ psychological development have found distinct behavioral patterns characterized by increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, hyperactivity, and attention problems. In another similar study, it was found that painful procedures in the neonatal period were associated with site-specific changes in the brain that have been found to be associated with mood disorders.

Studies of men who were sexually mutilated in infancy have found that some men experienced symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and intimacy problems that were directly associated with feelings about their sexual mutilation.

Ref: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage

● Autism: According to a study of 342877 boys born in Denmark between 1994 and 2003, sexually mutilated boys are 2 times as likely to develop autism than normal boys. Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530408/

All of the above harms affect 100% of male sexual mutilation victims. I regret to say that we could not include a complete list of harms of male sexual mutilation here due to limited space in this document.

“Further Complications” of male sexual mutilation:

1. Deaths from sexual mutilation: Most of the sexual mutilations of girls in Egypt are performed by medical professionals. One of those cases are shown in an Youtube video in this article on Female Sexual mutilation in Egypt.

92% of married Egyptian women aged 15 to 49 have been subjected to female sexual mutilation as Egyptian Muslims consider it to be a Sunnah (preferred in Islam), according to a recent government report. Even more alarmingly, 82% of female sexual mutilations in Egypt are performed by trained medical personnel, the United Nations reports.

On 29 May 2016, a 17 years old Egyptian girl, Mayar Mohamed Mousa, died after she had been forcibly sexually mutilated in a hospital by a medical doctor. Authorities ordered the hospital closed and referred two doctors and the head of the hospital for prosecution. Ref 1: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/01/health/genital-mutilation-abdelaziz/index.html Ref 2: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/egyptian-teen-manar-moussa-dies-during-illegal-female-circumcision/

Robert Baker estimates as 229 baby boys die per year in a developed country like United States as a result of male sexual mutilation. However, most of the deaths associated with sexual mutilation of baby boys, are not reported as a complication of male sexual mutilation by American doctors and are rather reported as result of other medical conditions in order to conceal their bloody and gory crime. Ref 1: SEXUAL MEDICINE TODAY, Volume 3, Number 11, Page 35-36, November 1979. – by Robert Leon Baker, M.D. Ref 2: http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

The rate of death from male sexual mutilation is among the highest in underdeveloped countries in Africa, where most of the male sexual mutilations are carried out outside medical settings in unhygienic conditions by illiterate local operators. As the Youtube video of sexual mutilation of African boys (which is a part of a full documentary video on male sexual mutilation by oddafrica.com) shows, a boy in those regions of Africa, after getting sexually mutilated, is at risk of death within a few days from tetanus or sepsis.

2. Loss of part of the penile body or loss of entire penis:

In July 2014, a doctor sliced off four-year-old boy's penis in Geneva, Switzerland, while performing sexual mutilation when the child turned to his father (an Algerian refugee) to pose for a photo as the incision was being made. Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4360420/Doctor-cut-four-year-old-s-PENIS-circumcision.html

In December 2016, a 10-year-old Malaysian boy got his penis cut off during a laser sexual mutilation at a clinic in Taman Cheras Utama in Malaysia. It was learnt that the doctor who performed the sexual mutilation had 21 years of experience and was a graduate from the University of Karachi in Pakistan. Ref: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/12/27/boy-loses-penis-during-botched-laser-circumcision/

In a span of a week, in Malaysia, a nine-year-old boy lost his penis in another male sexual mutilation case. According to Hindraf lawyer P Uthayakumar, a nine-year-old boy had the head of his penis completely severed during a sexual mutilation using scissors at a Jalan Ipoh clinic, Malaysia on Dec 15, 2016. Uthayakumar said the boy was then sent to the hospital here to try and reattach the penis. However, the reattachment failed and the penis blackened, leaving the doctor no choice but to amputate the boy's penis. Ref: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/12/29/boy-loses-penis-botched-circumcision/

In 9 April 2016, Riaz Uddin, a 8 years old Muslim boy in Bangladesh who was a 3rd grade student got his penis cut off during a genital mutilation performed by a “Khalifa” (in that region of Bangladesh, it means an illiterate local male genital mutilation operator) named “Jaru Mia”. The genital mutilation of the boy was carried out for Islamic religious reasons. Ref: http://www.jugantor.com/online/country-news/2016/04/17/10179/ The risk for a boy to get his penis cut off is much higher during a sexual mutilation if the mutilation is performed by an illiterate operator (non medical person).

In fact, according to the Wikipedia article “Penis transplantation”, in December 2014, the first successful penis transplant was performed in South Africa on a 21-year-old man who lost his penis in a sexual mutilation. Given that male sexual mutilations are performed frequently in parts of South Africa to mark a boy's transition to adulthood, and these are often unsanitary procedures, frequently carried out by uncertified amateurs, doctors have said that South Africa has some of the greatest need for penis transplantations in the world. On the 21st April 2017, a surgical team from Stellenbosch University and the Tygerberg Academic Hospital, South Africa performed a second penis transplant on a 40 year old male who had lost his penis 17 years prior, in a male sexual mutilation. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_transplantation

3. Spreading of HIV and STDs from male sexual mutilation related blood exposure in African sexually mutilated men: According to a 2011 study, sexually mutilated and scarified male children and youth were two to three times more likely to be infected with HIV than male children and youth who had not been sexually mutilated or scarified in Africa, respectively due to HIV infected blood exposures in unhygienic healthcare, cosmetic care, and rituals. Ref: https://www.webmedcentral.com/wmcpdf/Article_with_review_WMC002206.pdf

4. Male Sexual mutilation increases risk of urinary tract problems by 16-26 times: Male Sexual mutilation, whereby the foreskin is removed from the penis, can cause the urethral opening to narrow, making it difficult to urinate. The condition is called meatal stenosis and the risk of developing it is 16-26 times higher in sexually mutilated boys than normal boys. The protection provided by the foreskin for the glans penis and meatus has been recognized since 1915. In the absence of the foreskin the meatus is exposed to mechanical and chemical irritation from ammoniacal diaper (nappie) that produces blister formation and ulceration of the urethral opening, which eventually gives rise to meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urethral opening). Meatal stenosis may also be caused by ischemia resulting from damage to the frenular artery during male sexual mutilation. Numerous studies over a long period of time clearly indicate that male sexual mutilation contributes to the development of urethral stricture.

These are the conclusions of a new study based on data from the National Patient Register, the Central Population Register, and the National Health Service Register in Denmark between 1977 and 2013. Frisch & Simonsen (2016) carried out this study in Denmark, which compared the incidence of meatal stenosis in Muslim males (mostly sexually mutilated) with the incidence of meatal stenosis in ethnic Danish males (mostly normal).

The results are published in the journal The Surgeon.

Meatal stenosis can occur several years after male sexual mutilation, and may lead to infection if left untreated. It is treated by a second surgical procedure called meatotomy in which the meatus is crushed with a straight mosquito hemostat and then divided with fine-tipped scissors. Recently, home-dilatation has been shown to be a successful treatment for most boys.

Ref: http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-greatly-increases-risk-urinary-tract-problems Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meatal_stenosis

5. Meatitis: When the urethral opening becomes red and inflamed, the condition is known as meatitis. This is typically a self-limited condition which resolves as the epithelial surface of the glans thickens post-procedure. When meatitis is a late-onset finding, it is thought to be caused by chronic exposure to urine and irritation associated with wearing diapers in infants.

6. Secondary phimosis: When male sexual mutilation is performed on a boy with penile web or buried penis, the circumferential edge can pull together in a purse-string fashion and result in the penis being trapped under the mutilation site, creating a secondary phimosis. Surgical correction may be necessary.

7. Chordee (Penile curvature): Chordee is a condition in which the head of the penis curves downward or upward, at the junction of the head and shaft of the penis. The curvature is usually most obvious during erection. When present as a congenital finding, chordee (a ventral curvature of the penis) is a contraindication to routine male sexual mutilation. When chordee is not present at birth but develops as a complication of male sexual mutilation, it is thought to be due to uneven amounts of foreskin removal from the ventral and dorsal surfaces. In this case, the corporal bodies are normally formed -- unlike "true chordee" -- but the healing of the asymmetric edge causes the glans to deviate. Surgical correction may be necessary.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordee

8. Removal of too much or too little skin: Male sexual mutilation has no standard. It’s often botched. No two male sexual mutilations can be same. Removal of too much or too little skin is a very common complication of male sexual mutilation. Removal of too much skin can cause pain upon erection due to lack of skin on the penis to complete a normal erection. Removal of too much skin can cause unusual sensations such as burning, prickling, itching, tingling sensations of the penis due to the presence of scar tissue. A secondary corrective surgery may sometimes be necessary. Conditions that increase the likelihood of the skin recovering the glans (e.g. buried penis, webbed penis, or large hydroceles or inguinal hernias that encroach on the penile shaft) are contraindications to routine male sexual mutilation for this reason.

9. Penile girth and length shortened by male sexual mutilation: The mutilated penis is smaller in circumferential size compared to the normal penis. The vagina expects to receive the size of a full normal penis and not a smaller one. The penis also expects to feel adequate pressure from the vagina to also derive pleasure. The difference in size caused by an average 51% of the shaft skin (and possibly more) is illustrated below: A survey carried out in Australia showed that on average, sexually mutilated men have 8mm shorter penis length when erect compared to normal men. A "correctly" mutilated penis is unable to accomodate the body's full natural erection, full erection position marked here by the dashed line. This is due to the insufficient foreskin limiting the expansion of the penis, by an average of 8mm. Therefore, not only does male sexual mutilation reduce the girth (circumference) of the erect penis, but also the length - by exactly how much depends on how much foreskin was removed during the mutilation.

Ref: http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/intact_sex.html

10. Urinary Tract Infection: Urinary tract infections (UTI) are a complication of male sexual mutilation. They are bacterial infections of the urinary tract (kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra). UTIs are usually associated with congenital abnormalities of the urinary tract. These infections can become serious if undetected, and may lead to permanent kidney damage. However, they are generally treated effectively with antibiotics. Studies have demonstrated that Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, to which the infant has no passive immunity, can be colonized from the glans of sexually mutilated infants and those infants whose foreskins have been forcibly retracted, tearing the protective synechia. Although E. coli is one of the most common bacteria on the surface of human skin, strains found in hospitals tend to be particularly virulent. In infant girls UTIs generally originate in the colon, whereas in infant boys they originate from the external environment, strongly suggesting that for boys such infections are iatrogenic. Premature retraction and male sexual mutilation expose boys to hospital strains of E. coli that can cause UTI.

Ref: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/

11. Erectile Dysfunction: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the inability to get or keep an erection firm enough to have sexual intercourse. A new study in the International Journal of Men’s Health shows that sexually mutilated men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction (ED) than normal men, revealing what appears to be a significant acquisition vector. Other studies have previously observed that male sexual mutilation’s damage results in worsened erectile functioning, inability to maintain an erection, and reducing the glans sensitivity, including an overall penis sensitivity reduction by 75%. A recent study discovered that premature ejaculation is five times more likely when adjusted for erectile dysfunction and male sexual mutilation. Moreover, in Israel- a country that routinely sexually mutilates their baby boys for religious reasons- Viagra (medication for erectile dysfunction) is so common there that the Pfizer pharmaceutical company asked for permission to market Viagra without a doctor's prescription- making it an over-the-counter medication.

Ref: http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction

Ref: https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html

I regret to say that we could not include a complete list of “further complications” of male sexual mutilation here due to limited space in this document.

American Academy of Pediatrics gave it’s policy statement for male sexual mutilation as, “After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male sexual mutilation outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn male sexual mutilation. The AAP policy statement published Monday, 27 August 2012, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs”.

American Academy of Pediatrics mentioned only a few complications of male sexual mutilation only (not a full list of complications though). And it totally ignored all the harms of male sexual mutilation. It successfully deceived general people by highlighting the4ir fictitious benefits of male sexual mutilation.

There is not a single mention of any harm of male sexual mutilation in their policy statement. This way, American Academy of Pediatrics conceals their bloody and gory crime in a perfectly designed plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiscrund68 (talk • contribs)


 * Huh? Your text is WP:Too long; didn't read, even by my tolerance standards. I'm not sure why you felt you needed to start a new section instead of replying in the previous one, but you have cited some poor sources and even Wikipedia articles (which do not count as sources), and, because of the length of your post, I have not taken the time to parse what you are stating. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I do hope the references I have provided are not unreliable references. Can you let me know which reference on which topic you consider to be poor reference? Furthermore, what I wrote about is not about references. It's about disputing misleading information. Though an explanation may be enough for such a dispute, I have also included bunch of references along with my explanations and reasonings.

The current article mentions "non-medical foreskin mutilation" as a non-mutilating body modification. The article says as cutting off a problematic foreskin for an inevitable medical necessity and non-medical mutilation of a healthy foreskin is same thing and both are just "circumcision". I object. Medical science doesn't count any "non-medical organ mutilation" (no matter what organ, foreskin, labia minora, clitoral glans or whatever) as a medical procedure. If the foreskin is not being cut off for any medical reason, there's no question of any medical procedure being carried out here. Circumcision is a medical procedure and cutting off foreskin is circumcision only if it's cut off for medical reasons. Non-medical mutilation of foreskin or any other private parts such as labia minora or clitoral glans is not circumcision and is rather a sexual mutilation. Pro sexual mutilation advocates are promoting such mutilations as a medical procedure. It's a giant fraud. Calling non-medical mutilation of healthy foreskin same as removal of problematic foreskin for medical reasons is like someone is calling non-medical mutilation of healthy labia minora (female sexual mutilation type IIa) same as "Labiaplasty" (removal of labia minora for a medical reason).

Furthermore, unlike many people believe, foreskin mutilation of healthy child boys is not legal under existing law. Cutting off or irreversible damage to any body part (no matter what part, it can be fingers, toes, nose, ears, earlobes, foreskin, labia, clitoral glans or whatever) of a person is a criminal offense which is called "grievous bodily harm" in legal term. In a couple of court cases, the offenders of foreskin mutilation have been jailed for more than a decade in Israel, Canada for "Grievous bodily harm" and "Aggravated sexual assault" charges. All the examples of court cases with respective references are provided above. The news are published in international newspapers, so the references are reliable enough as I hope. I have also included lots of other information and references regarding this.

Though many people think as government needs to ban non-medical foreskin cutting, but the fact is that cutting off any body part of a person has already banned by law and there is nothing to ban it further. Parents can not get a body part of their child cut off unless there's any medical necessity to do so. For example, parents can not get their child's foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging.

About banning male sexual mutilation, as of yet, female sexual mutilation is banned with specific law in only a few countries where female sexual mutilation is prevalent. This doesn't mean that female sexual mutilation is legal in other countries.

Estimates suggest 90% of females in the Ismaili Shia Muslim Bohra community in India become victims of female sexual mutilation. There are about 2 million Bohras in India. Ref: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Bohra-women-go-online-to-fight-circumcision-trauma/Article1-779782.aspx Ref 2: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?279088 Ref 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country#India

However, India has no specific law against female sexual mutilation. This doesn't mean that such practice is legal in India.

Released in early 2016, the report showed that 513,000 girls and women were either affected - or at risk of undergoing FGM in the U.S.

According to 1997 estimates by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at that time, over 168,000 girls and women in the U.S. had either been, or were at risk of being, subjected to female sexual mutilation. In 2000, the African Women’s Health Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital put the number at 227,887. The Population Reference Bureau estimated that in 2011 there were up to 507,000 females who had undergone female sexual mutilation or were at risk of it. - Ref 1: http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/EN_FAQ_FGM_in_US.pdf Ref 2: http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2015/us-fgmc.aspx

As of 2015, 24 US states have specific laws against female sexual mutilation. - Ref 1: http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/EN_FAQ_FGM_in_US.pdf Ref 2: http://www.equalitynow.org/infographic_fgm_in_us

Though as of 2015, 26 US states don't have any specific law against female sexual mutilation, this doesn't mean that such practice is legal in those 26 states. Nor male sexual mutilation is legal in any of those 50 US states. As mentioned above, it's unlawful for [parents to cut off any body part (no matter what part, e.g., foreskin, labia or clitoral glans or whatever) of their child. Thus there is no need to ban male sexual mutilation or female sexual mutilation any further.

US hospital authorities give parents a consent form to sign when they ask the doctors to cut off the healthy foreskin of their baby boy. But, such a consent form is not only legally useless for the doctor, but also an evidence of the involvement of the child's parents in the bloody, gory crime committed against the child.

Because providing parents a consent form to sign who ask for mutilation of healthy foreskin of their child boy is same as providing parents a consent form to sign who ask for mutilation of labia minora (female sexual mutilation type IIa) or mutilation of clitoral glans (female sexual mutilation type I) of their child girl in any of the 26 US states where there's no specific law against female sexual mutilation.

Or it's same as providing parents a consent form to sign who asks for getting their child's foot cut off so that the child can earn money begging.

The giant fraud behind male sexual mutilation: The so called benefits of male sexual mutilations are complete frauds. Male sexual mutilation does not create any immunity to any disease or infection, so it's in no way comparable with a vaccine. Male sexual mutilation is advertised as infection, medical condition preventative. However, infections and medical conditions can affect any body part and not just the foreskin. So what about getting such benefits by cutting off other body parts. So pulling off healthy molar teeths of childrens will be a medical benefit as it prevents dental cavities, even though it doesn't create any immunity to cavities. Cutting off breasts of male childrens will be a medical benefit as it will prevent male breast cancer which affects more men than penile cancer affect men, even though it will not create any immunity to male breast cancer. The most important point to note that the foreskin is not the body part most vulnerable to diseases and infections. Female external genitalia such as labia folds are much more vulnerable to diseases and infections than the foreskin. Foreskin produces smegma than keeps the foreskin always moist making the foreskin vulnerable to infections. But this is very important to note that girls produce much more smega than boys inside their labia folds and under clitoral hood. The smegma creates a warm and moist environment inside labia folds, creating an ideal environment for bacterial growth making labia much more vulnerable to diseases and infections than the foreskin. Thus, routine cutting off labia minora of healthy child girls can prevent a wide range of infections and medical conditions such as Clitoral phimosis, Vulvities (infection), vulvovaginal candidiasis, urinary tract infection, vulvodynia (vulvar pain), Dyspareunia, Chronic pain of the vulva, Hygienic difficulties, Vulvar cancer, Vulvar scabies, Lichen sclerosus, Labial adhesion affecting external female genitalia. So cutting off labia minora will have a lot more medical benefit than cutting off the foreskin. So, it's very obvious that the fraudulent unscientific benefits of male sexual mutilation is same as the benefits of female sexual mutilation.

American Pediatrics and their organization American Academy of Pediatrics, the inventors and sponsors of the benefits of male sexual mutilation are well documented frauds. They make a huge amount of money each year by sexually mutilating American baby boys. They also sell the foreskin to anti-aging cream companies, biomedical researchers, etc. buyers. It's a billion dollar industry there. Now the reason behind this giant fraud committed by "American Academy of Pediatrics" is very clear.

In the last detailed post, I have explained everything very clearly. Now I am repeating some vital things.

This is very important to note that unlike United States, male sexual mutilation is not performed on infant boys in rest of the countries in the world. In many Muslim countries, African and Asian countries, male sexual mutilation is performed on older boys. Almost no boy want to get his private parts cut off. And the boys are held down, forcibly stripped and forcibly sexually mutilated then.

Attaching some video evidences here (videos found on Youtube with search keywords such as "Khatna videos" and "Circumcision videos")-

Video evidence 1 – Forced sexual mutilation of a teenage Muslim girl in Egypt by a medical doctor in hospital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd6jmf_O4j0

Video evidence 2 – Forced sexual mutilation of Muslim boy in home in Asia by illiterate traditional operator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkyjZ1kTNU0&t=6s

Video evidence 3 – Forced sexual mutilation of child/teen boys in Africa by illiterate local operators: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvW2b9ujdWo&t=1s

Video evidence 4: Video of forced sexual mutilation being taken against the wishes of the Indian boy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWoUHZ_gX0Q

Video evidence 5: Forced sexual mutilation of an Indian boy (boy screaming loud in extreme pain, but everybody surrounding is laughing, having fun): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISXDzw3DN5I

Though any person who thinks male sexual mutilation is ok may be surprised to know about female sexual mutilation and surprised to watch female sexual mutilation videos, now upon a closer look at all these videos, is there any difference between “Female sexual mutilation” and “Male sexual mutilation”?

The above videos are disturbing. Voices of the boys are clear. Attacks on them are brutal. Anybody in a civilized society will be shocked to watch these videos. There's nothing more tragic than a child is experiencing cruel and degrading aggravated sexual assault from his parents itself.

Lots of male sexual mutilation videos have been uploaded to Youtube.com (largest video sharing site) and new videos are being uploaded everyday.

In Video 4, the boy who was being forcibly sexually mutilated requested his family members not to take video of the violence. A female family member promised not to take video of the offence. But actually they filmed the entire operation of the offence and uploaded the video of their bloody, gory crime to Youtube.com (largest video sharing site). Even though it’s illegal to upload such video of a child in internet, they made it clear that they are not afraid of law or court.

About the “Video 2”, the title of the above video in Youtube is “Funny Khatna 2016”. In Islam, “Khatna” means “Sexual mutilation”. And for “UBAID UR REHMAN”, a fundamentalist Muslim, the uploader of the video, the screaming of the boy during his un-anesthesized sexual mutilation was so funny. So he titled the video as “Funny Khatna 2016”.

Often in a sexual mutilation case, we see a boy is screaming and people surrounding him are laughing. For example, in video 5, we see a boy is screaming loud in extreme pain during his sexual mutilation, but everybody surrounding him is laughing and having fun with this.

Now how are the above cases supposed to be medical procedures. And how are the above offenses supposed to be legal? This is what happening to child boys today. Are these same thing as a medical circumcision where the problematic foreskin is removed for an inevitable medical necessity?

You said as I have provided references with Wikipedia article links which don't qualify as references. Well, actually I haven't provided Wikipedia article links as references. I just wanted to explain how are the different Wikipedia articles contradictious with each other.

According to the Wikipedia article “Mutilation” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation), the definition of “Mutilation” or “Maiming” is as follows-

“Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.”

According to “Oxford Dictionaries” (published by the Oxford University Press), “Mutilation or maiming is removal of or injury to a body part so that the part of the body is permanently damaged.” Ref: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/maim

The Wikipedia article “Mutilation” also states as, “Some ethnic groups practice ritual mutilation, e.g. scarification, circumcision (indicating to non-medical foreskin mutilation), burning, flagellation, tattooing, or wheeling, as part of a rite of passage.” Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation

As you can see, the Wikipedia article “Mutilation” is describing “non-medical foreskin mutilation” as a “ritual mutilation”. So the Wikipedia article “Mutilation” and the Wikipedia article “Genital modification and mutilation” conflicts with each other.

The Wikipedia article “Mutilation” also states as, “the Danish Society for General Medicine (who has approximately 3000 members and includes two thirds of all the country's general practitioners) has declared in 2014 that male circumcision (indicating to non-medical foreskin mutilation) an ethically unacceptable mutilation.” Ref: http://www.bt.dk/danmark/danske-laeger-omskaering-af-drenge-er-lemlaestelse [Note: The news in published in Danish. Thus, it needs to be translated with google translator.] Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/denmarks-29000-doctors-declare-circumcision-of-healthy_us_58753ec1e4b08052400ee6b3

Furthermore, there is no difference between cutting off foreskin or cutting off any other body part, according to medical and legal definition and according to the above definition of “Mutilation” from Wikipedia and Oxford Dictionaries.

You said as mutilation is cutting off an essential body part such as limbs. I wonder, what qualifies as an essential body part here. And if only cutting off vital organs is mutilation, I really wonder how is cutting off labia minora or even cutting off clitoral hood (female prepuce - the skin covering clitoral glans) supposed to be a mutilation. Labia minora, clitoral hood are no essential body part, compared to limbs. So there will be no mutilation in cutting off labia minora, clitoral hood. Right? So can you explain, why is cutting off labia minora only is called female sexual mutilation type IIa. Why is cutting off clitoral hood only (female prepuce - the skin covering the clitoral glans) is called female sexual mutilation type Ia. How is labia minora or clitoral hood more functional or more essential than the foreskin?

Wikipedia article "Genital modification and mutilation" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutilation) states as-

"Genital mutilation is injury to or removal of part of the genitals of either sex."

According to this definition, non-medical foreskin cutting is a clear case of "male sexual mutilation".

Not just the cases of forced sexual mutilation of child boys, even if a child boy is sexually mutilated with his consent, this is still a sexual mutilation. As the boy is not aware of what’s happening with him, there’s no question of any consent being taken. This is the same principle which is applicable for rape law for girls under the age of consent. Having sex with a girl under the age of consent even with the consent of the girl is still a rape. As the girl is not aware of what she is consenting to, there is no question of any consent being taken. And this is the same principle which is applicable for "female sexual mutilation" of child girls. Even if a child girl is sexually mutilated with her consent, this is still a "sexual mutilation".

This principle is also supported by the Wikipedia article “Genital modification and mutilation” which reads,

"Genital modification is a body modification that involves voluntary alteration of human genitals. Genital mutilation is injury to or removal of part of the genitals of either sex. Unlike genital modifications, genital mutilations are involuntary and are performed without the informed consent of the recipient. This can be a forced genital mutilation of an adult or genital mutilation of a child."

The Wikipedia article "Circumcision" states as ritual cutting off foreskin without any necessity is same as a medical circumcision done for an inevitable medical necessity and both are classified as “Circumcision”. The article doesn’t classify ritual cutting off foreskin without any inevitable medical necessity as a “Violence against children” and it rather states as it’s analogous to a medically necessary circumcision.

But surprisingly, the Wikipedia article “Forced circumcision” has been classified under the series “Violence against men” and under the category "Forced genital mutilation". If you read that article, you will find that the article talks about forced foreskin mutilation of adult men by Islamist groups and other groups in various parts of the world. And it’s considered as a violence, as the Wikipedia article states.

But the Wikipedia article "Circumcision" indicates as "Forcible cutting off healthy foreskin of a child boy for non-medical reasons authorized by his parents is no different than cutting off a problematic foreskin for an inevitable medical necessity and both are circumcision and isn't a violence."

If forcible cutting off foreskin of an adult man committed by someone else apart from his parents is a violence, how is forcible cutting off foreskin of a child boy for non-medical reasons authorized by his parents supposed to be lawful?

Rather, a violence committed by the parents of the victim is a way serious offense than the same violence committed by someone else, according to legal principles, as it will incur an additional charge called "Custodial violence/Domestic violence" in legal term.

Furthermore, a violence committed against a child is a way serious offense than the same violence committed against an adult, according to legal principles, as it will incur an additional "Child abuse" charge.

The Wikipedia article "Forced circumcision" says about a case of forced sexual mutilation of an adult man in Indonesia as,

"Thousands of Christians were forcibly circumcised in the Moluccas from December 1999 to January 2001. The Sydney Morning Herald reported in detail on this, stating that "almost all" of 3,928 villagers forced to convert to Islam were circumcised. Razors and knives were reused, causing infections. One of those circumcised, Kostantinus Idi, reported: "I could not escape," he said. "One of them held up my foreskin between pieces of wood while another cut me with a razor ...the third man held my head back, ready to pour water down my throat if I screamed. But I couldn't help but scream and he poured the water. I kept screaming aloud and vomited. I couldn't stand the pain." He further reported that one of the clerics urinated on his wound, saying it would stop infection. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the forced conversions and forced circumcisions had been condemned by moderate Muslim leaders who said they were contrary to Islamic teachings."

Now what type of procedure is this? Now no medical procedure? Now it's a grievous bodily harm? - Which is punishable by life imprisonment.

Now if forced foreskin cutting of a child boy is not a grievous bodily harm and is something like forced vaccination of a child, then forced foreskin cutting of an adult will not be a grievous bodily harm and will be a forced vaccination of an adult. Unlike forced vaccination of a child authorized by parents, forced vaccination of an adult may be a crime, but unlike grievous bodily harm, forced vaccination of an adult will be a simple assault crime which is punishable by a few months of imprisonment.

So, do you think, forced foreskin cutting of an adult person is like forced vaccination of an adult, a simple assault, not a grievous bodily harm and is punishable by a few months of imprisonment only rather than life imprisonment? If you don't think so, how do you think that forced foreskin cutting of a child is not a grievous bodily harm (which is punishable by life imprisonment) and is like vaccinating a child?

And how are the cases of mutilation shown in the above videos supposed to be medical procedures? The offenses are carried out by illiterate local operators and not by medical professionals. The above videos are disturbing. Voices of the boys are clear. Attacks on them are brutal. Oh, I forgot, this is a medical procedure.

Now the Wikipedia article "Circumcision" doesn't consider forced non-medical foreskin cutting of child boys a violence. And the Wikipedia article "Circumcision" is posted under the category of medical procedures. If the cases of mutilation shown in the above videos are not supposed to be medical procedures and a violence, where is the Wikipedia article classified under the category of "Violence against children" that will cover those cases? There is no Wikipedia article with the title "Male sexual mutilation". Does the cases shown in the above videos qualify as "male sexual mutilation". Does the cases shown in the above videos qualify as a violence? If so, Wikipedia should have an article under the category "Violence against children" covering these cases.

The Wikipedia articles "Circumcision" states as "Circumcision is removal of foreskin from the human penis". There is no mention of a medical necessity or a medical process. It means as cutting off foreskin from a child's penis in whatever manner, even when not following any medical process, is still same as cutting off foreskin following medical process for an inevitable medical necessity and both are classified as "Circumcision".

So, according to the Wikipedia article "Circumcision", the cases shown in the above videos are also circumcision, a medical procedure, and not a violence.

However, the Wikipedia article "Forced circumcision" suggests as non-medical foreskin cutting of infant boys authorized by parents are also "forced circumcision". As the article represents "forced circumcision" as a violence, this means as the article says, "non-medical foreskin cutting of infant boys authorized by parents is a violence".

This is what the Wikipedia article "Forced circumcision" states,

"The most common form of forced circumcision is performed widely in Israel and the United States, where it is known as neonatal circumcison. This form of circumcision involves the circumcison of a male newborn. Although their parents may consent to it, the males themselves do not, therefore making it forced."

The Wikipedia article "Genital cutting" classify "Female sexual mutilation" and "Male sexual mutilation" under the same category. The article states as,

Genital cutting practices can include:

Female genital cutting (FGC) including:

Clitoridectomy Dysmenorrhea Dyspareunia Labiaplasty Vaginoplasty

Male genital cutting including:

Castration Circumcision (male) Penectomy Penile subincision Penile superincision

Sex assignment of intersex children

The article also states as, "Genital cutting refers to genital modification and mutilation of the human genitals using a cutting instrument. This terminology is often used in some literature specifically to avoid using the terms 'mutilation' or 'circumcision'."

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_cutting

About male sexual mutilations committed by medical doctors, a mutilation committed by a doctor doesn't make the offense a medical procedure. For example, most of the female sexual mutilations in Egypt are performed by medical professionals, but this does not make the offense a medical procedure. One of those cases are shown in the 1st Youtube video above.

92% of married Egyptian women aged 15 to 49 have been subjected to female sexual mutilation as Egyptian Muslims consider it to be a Sunnah (preferred in Islam), according to a recent government report. Even more alarmingly, 82% of female sexual mutilations in Egypt are performed by trained medical personnel, the United Nations reports.

On 29 May 2016, a 17 years old Egyptian girl, Mayar Mohamed Mousa, died after she had been forcibly sexually mutilated in a hospital by a medical doctor. Authorities ordered the hospital closed and referred two doctors and the head of the hospital for prosecution.

Ref 1: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/01/health/genital-mutilation-abdelaziz/index.html Ref 2: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/egyptian-teen-manar-moussa-dies-during-illegal-female-circumcision/

Male sexual mutilation is as harmful as female sexual mutilation (except female sexual mutilation type III):

Male Sexual Mutilation is as harmful as female sexual mutilation in it’s violence and consequences. Because both female sexual mutilation and male sexual mutilation eliminates the major erogenous zone of the victim’s genitals. The major erogenous zone in female genitals is the clitoral glans. And the major erogenous zone in males is the foreskin. Hence, mutilation of foreskin is analogous to mutilation of clitoral glans itself. Many believes as foreskin is not analogous to clitoral glans and rather penile glans is analogous to clitoral glans, which is a misconception. Removal of all external female genitalia is not analogous to removal of all external male genitalia. If a girl gets all of her external female genitalia, which includes clitoral glans, clitoral hood, labia, cut off, she will still be able to have sex. However, if a boy gets all his external genitalia cut off, which includes his entire penis, he will not be able to have sex at all. So the penile body, which is the vital male sex organ is not analogous to female clitoris. Therefore, injury to penile body is not analogous to injury to clitoris, and is rather analogous to injury to vagina, which is the vital sex organ in females. So mutilation of penile glans is not analogous to mutilation of clitoral glans (if that was so, the mutilation of entire clitoris would be analogous to mutilation of entire penis). Rather, any injury to the penile body, which is the vital sex organ in males, is directlty analogous to an injury to vagina in females, wghich is the vital female sex organ.

The functions of the foreskin is same as functions of the clitoral glans. Clitoral glans enhances sexual pleasure of the woman during sexual activity. And foreskin does the same job in men. Like clitoral glans is the major erogenous zone in female genitals, foreskin is the major erogenous zone in male genitals. In fact foreskin contains 2.5 times as many nerve endings as the clitoral glans does. Foreskin contains 20000 nerve endings compared to clitoral glans which contains 8000 nerve endings only. Foreskin itself contains 20000 nerve endings out of 24000 total nerve endings of the penis, which means the foreskin contains 83% nerve endings of the penis. Foreskin contains all the 5 most sensitive parts of the penis. Furthermore, foreskin contains the frenulum (which is called the male G-spot) and ridged bad, 2 more highly sensitive and highly specialized parts of the penis. In fact, according to a medical study on human penis by National Organization on Circumcision Information and Resources Center, United States and Michigan State University, United States, the most sensitive part of a foreskin mutilated penis is the mutilation scar.

Not to mention, in a female genital mutilation, not the entire structure of the clitoris is cut off. Only the clitoral glans is cut off as the rest of the clitoral body is expanded inside the women body. It is estimated by some that the female G spot, an erogenous zone inside vagina that helps women to achieve a vaginal orgasm is an extension of the clitoris.

In fact, foreskin has more functions than the clitoris.

Foreskin is more sensitive than the clitoral glans according to nerve density. Foreskin has the highest nerve concentration not only in the penis, but also in the entire human body. Having 8000 nerve endings, clitoral glans is in the 2nd position in the list when it comes to most sensitive body part.

In a male sexual mutilation, the penile glans, means the original penile body, means the vital male sex organ is harmed, where in a female sexual mutilation, the vagina, the vital female sex organ is unharmed. In a male sexual mutilation, one third to half of penile skin is eliminated. Now along with the foreskin, if rest of the skin from the penis is cut off, the entire penis will loss it’s sensitivity and normal functions and the person will not be able to enjoy sex any further. So it is very clear that mutilation of skin covering the penis amounts to harm to the original penile body as well, which is the vital sex organ in male. In a female sexual mutilation, the vagina, the vital female sex organ is unharmed. And it suggests as mutilation of foreskin causes more harm than mutilation of clitoral glans. So, foreskin mutilation appears to be more harmful than clitoral glans mutilation.

Foreskin has bunch of other functions such as natural lubrication, gliding mechanism, immune defense, etc. etc., all of which are harmed in a male sexual mutilation.

Female sexual mutilation is condemned by Americans and Europeans as a barbaric human rights violation. But somehow, when the exact same thing is done to boys by men in white coats, Americans consider it normal and “no big deal.”

The ritual Sexual Mutilation of healthy boys is arguably as bad as – and in some cases worse than – the majority of female sexual mutilation in Africa, with the exception of Type III Female Sexual Mutilation – which involves infubulation (stitching together the edges of the vulva to prevent sexual intercourse) – which accounts for 20% of all Female Sexual Mutilation cases.

I have explained all the harms of male sexual mutilation in the above post with necessary respective references. I have also included lots of other information in the above post. More than 30% of worldwide men have become victims of male sexual mutilation. No other violence in world history is known to have affected so many people. Considering this among the biggest human rights violation in world's history, I sincerely request you administrator sir to read my last detailed post which you haven't read full, as you said.

Also the Wikipedia article "Circumcision" doesn't mention a single harm of male sexual mutilation. This Wikipedia article advertises this sexual offense as a beneficial medical procedure. This is fueling such sexual offense against child boys among Muslim communities and among the communities where male sexual mutilation is practiced. Fundamentalist Muslims and male sexual mutilation advocates are using the reference to the Wikipedia article "Circumcision" to promote this violence. This is shocking to know that a Wikipedia article is fueling a bloody, gory crime, a cruel, degrading, brutal middle aged violence against children. I do hope you administrator sir will do something about this.

American Academy of Pediatrics gave it’s policy statement for male sexual mutilation as, “After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male sexual mutilation outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn male sexual mutilation. The AAP policy statement published Monday, 27 August 2012, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs”.

American Academy of Pediatrics mentioned only a few complications of male sexual mutilation only (not a full list of complications though). And it totally ignored all the harms of male sexual mutilation. It successfully deceived general people by highlighting the4ir fictitious benefits of male sexual mutilation.

There is not a single mention of any harm of male sexual mutilation in their policy statement. This way, American Academy of Pediatrics conceals their bloody and gory crime in a perfectly designed plot.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiscrund68 (talk • contribs)
 * Are you trying to write the new article here or something? There's no reason to post pages-long rants on a talk page.  I've noticed a few issues:
 * You're not sticking to tertiary (not primary or even secondary) professionally-published mainstream academic medical sources that discuss broader trends among medical professionals.
 * You're citing Youtube, which usually falls under either WP:USERG or WP:COPYVIO (if not WP:PRIMARY).
 * You seem to be looking for sources to support your conclusion, rather than summarizing the variety of appropriate sources (see first point) on the topic.
 * Your obvious emotional investment in the topic, combined with narrow focus on it, suggests that not here for the encyclopedia but to advocate your stance on it.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No medical organization considers circumcision to be mutilation. American Academy of Pediatrics has never used the word "mutilation' when referring to circumcision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenod888 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And that is why the article is currently titled "Genital modification and mutilation," and states what it does in the lead. Also, per WP:Sock, you need to stick to one account. And if you are not a sock, you are certainly a WP:Meatpuppet. When it comes to this edit that DrStrauss and I kept reverting you (or the meatpuppet) on, you were using yourdictionary.com as a source. I'm not sure that yourdictionary.com is a WP:Reliable source. Your use of oxforddictionaries.com is better, but it is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. You should be using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for this topic. Do take the time to read WP:MEDRS, just like you take the time to read Wikipedia articles. You also changed "Circumcision" to "Non-medical male genital cutting," but left in the circumcision map and the World Health Organization (WHO) circumcision source. We follow what the sources state; so you should not be changing "The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world's men are circumcised." to "The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world's men have undergone male genital cutting." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think my short comment was confused to be part of a longer comment since I wrote before them and then after them, so it made it seem like a long post written by one person. This is my only account. I am the one who linked in an oxford dictionary definition (which many college professors reference as well) where it did not define mutilation to be related to consent and I commented that no medical organization considers circumcision to be mutilation. American Academy of Pediatrics is a reliable source and they do not define circumcision of infants to be mutilation. I am glad that the article is linked in as genital modification as well since it makes things more balanced which is my purpose here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenod888 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I know that the Thiscrund68 account is not the same as the Tenod888 account. I simply find it suspicious that you decided to show up again to comment after the Thiscrund68 account was blocked four 24 hours. Two different accounts does not mean that you are not the same person; nor does it mean that you are not a meatpuppet. As for the edit in question, it was the Thiscrund68 account that made the long posts above and the edits to the article. Your account does not show that you linked in anything, except for merriam-webster.com when making an initial comment. So regardless of whether or not you are admitting to being Thiscrund68 or conversing with Thiscrund68 off Wikipedia, it's clear that you have a link to Thiscrund68. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I decided to "show up" because I remembered yesterday that I had left a comment here some days ago and just wanted to check up on it. I have no idea about any other account. Thiscrund68 has no connection to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenod888 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genital modification and mutilation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714011000/http://www.nthword.com/issue5/Interview_Liz_Canner_Orgasm_Inc.php to http://www.nthword.com/issue5/Interview_Liz_Canner_Orgasm_Inc.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Image not showing: "Full subincision.jpg"
I've made an edit to remove an image that refuses to show. I've also removed the same image from the page "Penile subincision". I tried to fix it but couldn't. Please discuss this on the talk page there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W.andrea (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Reasons
The reasons given in the opening section are: "Reasons

1.1 Body modification 1.2 Voluntary sex reassignment 1.3 Involuntary sex assignment 1.4 As treatment 1.5 Self-inflicted"

Religious ritual should top this list. It is the predominant reason for FGM and MGM. Yet it is absent. This could suggest a hidden agenda taking precedence over encyclopaedic fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.143.0 (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Addressed. — Guarapiranga (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Guarapiranga, I reverted you here because the religious aspect is already mentioned. In the "Female genital mutilation" section, the text states "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other surgery of the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons." Specific religious reasons should be addressed in the "Female genital mutilation" and "Circumcision" sections respectively. But I went ahead and re-added this without the links to the Female genital mutilation article and the Circumcision article and without the bolding; see MOS:BOLD. Those links are best served as "main article" links in the in the "Female genital mutilation" and "Circumcision" sections. You need to add additional sources to the religious material you added. I also reverted you because you replaced the WHO-sourced map with no explanation as to why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * When you reply, I ask that you don't WP:Ping me. This talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because that WHO data is not current, Flyer22. It's from TWELVE years ago; it doesn't accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. In this interim, prevalence of circumcision in the US, UK and Australia, for instance, have decreased substantially. — Guarapiranga (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I replied here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And here is what you erased just bc you didn't understand it (as your questions there clearly demonstrate):
 * — Guarapiranga (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't understand? Not what I see. Keep the discussion in one place, per WP:TALKCENT. We don't need to discuss this map at two different places. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Where in the text you reverted was it comparing global male genital cutting to female genital mutilation, ? — Guarapiranga (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's simple. You added, "The vast majority of genital cutting in the world, 70% in males." And you used this source. In what way do you think it's appropriate to use that circumcision source to state that 70% of genital cutting in the world is done on males? The only way the source can be saying that is if it has compared all genital cutting, including that done on girls and women. If that is not what you were saying, your choice of wording was poor. Furthermore, that source is from 2007.


 * Stop pinging me. I already told you that I don't need to be pinged to an article I am obviously watching. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, you're having some serious problems with reading comprehension. I didn't write that 70% of genital cutting in the world is done on males. Read that sentence again (without dishonestly truncating it): — Guarapiranga (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm not pinging you; I'm addressing you. It's common courtesy and serves for everyone else to know whom I'm speaking to. This is a public forum, not a private conversation. However you manage your notifications feed is your problem, not mine or anyone else's. — Guarapiranga (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * First, I'm not a dude. Second, if you continue the personal attacks that Alexbrn have warned you about at Talk:Circumcision, I will take you to WP:ANI. Your editing has been disruptive enough as it is. Third, you go on about reading comprehension, but it's not about that. As seen with this edit, you added "and nearly all in females" with a WP:Pipelink to the Female genital mutilation article. As seen with this edit, I accidentally removed "and nearly all in females" when removing the links from the text (per the reasons I gave above). So the text was left with "70% in males." That is what I was commenting on because I didn't realize until minutes ago that I'd removed the "and nearly all in females" piece. It wasn't about dishonestly truncating it. There are still issues with what you added regardless. And that starts with sourcing.


 * And you are pinging me. Do you not know what WP:Ping is? Read it. That is what you are doing. There is no need to link my username when addressing me, giving me a notification, at this talk page. I need no notification that you have replied. I can see you replying on my watchlist. Other editors know who you are replying to because my username/talk page is linked with my first response in this section and editors have eyes. They can see that you are replying to Flyer22 Reborn without you linking Flyer22 Reborn each and every time. So when an editor asks you to stop pinging them because it's not necessary, stop. Otherwise, you are intentionally trying to annoy the editor. And if you think you won't be reprimanded for such at ANI, you should think again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you've cleared up your confusion. Now that you did, please go ahead and undo your disruptive editing. — Guarapiranga (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Confusion? Disruptive editing? Do stop confusing your behavior with mine. If anything, I should remove that unsourced "Religious" section of yours. You act like that WHO source you added negates the issues with that section. Also, per WP:TPO, do not break up my comment again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please refer to policy. If it's not WP policy, it's no use getting worked up about it. — Guarapiranga (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Ping is not policy, but WP:HA is. If an editor asks not to be pinged and this is ignored, the community is likely to take a dim view. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you mention it,, that is precisely your modus operandi (as your talk page makes it plentifully evident: {tq2|Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.}} In fact, what you do, in addition to WP:HA, , is repeatedly WP:AOHA as means of harassing. — Guarapiranga (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But, no, there's nothing in WP:HA saying that addressing users by their username, via the platform's native form of addressing users, constitutes harassment of any sort. — Guarapiranga (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You have been warned. Making inept reports to admin noticeboards might also be considered harrassment by the community. Alexbrn (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Alex, you have been warned too. Like numerous times. By numerous people. Let me remind you (in case you haven't looked at that page you linked in a while): Guarapiranga (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You missed out the times I've been taken to WP:COIN for my conflict of interest; they're the best. I am always happy to have the community examine matters at a noticeboard, and am confident there will be consensus for good outcomes. Alexbrn (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "If it's not WP policy, it's no use getting worked up about it." So, according to you, we should ignore all other rules as well. Also see WP:BURO, which is clear that Wikipedia is not just about policies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, just the ones you create out of thin air. What you want is to compel speech beyond what's protocol in this platform. The rules are not yours alone to make. Guarapiranga (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * &#x2a;Shrug* WP:HA specifically warns against "repeated annoying and unwanted contacts". If you keep pinging Flyer when she has specifically asked you not to, the community will sanction you. It's your choice. Alexbrn (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Danish College of General Practitioners addition
Alexbrn, any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It a bit of a WP:CHERRY from that source, which I am familiar with from the Circumcision article. If it's to be used, a more representative framing would also mention the context of the European controversy and the medical misinformation spread by opponent to circumcision. The very conclusion of that review, after all, is "The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." I also note the reference for the statement is a URL from 2013 that now seems dead. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Alexbrn. I'll think this over. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I added it to this article is because it seems pretty weird to put male circumcision on a genital modification/mutilation page without even mentioning that some in the medical community view it as mutilation. But if you want to add to the sentence and provide more context regarding the controversy, feel free to do so. However, I don't see how mentioning "medical misinformation" spread by intactivists is relevant to this article. I also fell like it has little encyclopedic value, especially if there isn't any strong evidence that intactivist misinformation is what is influencing the European medical community to consider the practice to be controversial. Prcc27 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * MrOllie, seeing you in the edit history of the Circumcision article, do you have any suggestions on how best to relay this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems a bit WP:UNDUE to single out the Danish opinion. Maybe some of the language about 'positions of the world's major medical organizations' from the second paragraph of the circumcision article's lead could be adapted for use here? - MrOllie (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"Prevalence of male genital mutilation" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Prevalence of male genital mutilation. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Я
Хочу чтоб мои анальныи губки максимально раздули вакуумной помпой и после долгова фистинга украсили пирсингом с четырёх позже восьми сторон для постоянных оттяжек. Пирсинг должен зажить, дырка утратить способность сокращения. Хочу чтоб мой хуй разрезали вдоль до основания пополам и сделали из него огромный клитор. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.234.50.196 (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Translated to English this results in an "unconstructive" warning. Why is it allowed in Russian? 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:FDA6:501A:4CF6:FC6 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2023
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  18:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation → Genital modification – Neutral, non-judgemental wording in line with similar articles: such as body modification. Clear instance where WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NDESC is applicable. Additionally, "mutilation" is reductant: all forms of mutilation are body modifications. (And not vice versa) Title implies all of these things are mutilation. KlayCax (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose: there is nothing “judgmental” or POV with the fact that certain types of genital cutting (especially female genital cutting, male castration, etc.) are generally recognized and commonly referred to as “genital mutilation”. No, the title does not imply that everything in this article is mutilation. This article is about genital modification and mutilation. Prcc27 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mutilation is already encompassed by the term modification. It's a subset of it.
 * All A (mutilation) is B (modification)
 * But not all B (modification) is A (mutilation).
 * To meet WP: NPOVNAME and WP: NDESC: the article's title would have to include "enhancement" as well. Since there's a lot of body/genital modifications that are also considered to be improvements as well. (e.g. "Genital modification, enhancement, and mutilation") That's horrendously clunky and makes the article (like the current version) significantly harder to find.
 * Changing it to "body modification" also in line with the precedent established by other articles. (See the body modification page, et al.) Like genital modifications, there are also other forms of body modifications that are considered mutilation. Yet the article is only titled "body modification".
 * We can establish which one's are generally considered to be and/or not to be in the body. (Along with enhancement.)
 * There's a separate mutilation article already as well. KlayCax (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The body modification page looks problematic. It needs to be cleaned up, possibly even merged with mutilation. Prcc27 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE, avoiding redundancy (as well as opinion). The current title is like "Mammals and ugly dogs". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit of a stretch to say the title is like “mammals and ugly dogs”. The difference between “modification” and “mutilation” is one is done without consent and/or is an act of violence, and the other one is not. It is an important distinction to make in the article’s title, to avoid trivializing genital mutilation. Prcc27 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Prcc27. Obviously not everything in this article is genital mutilation. I would strongly oppose the argument that mutilation is encompassed by modification. Mutilation is not encompassed by the term modification because that argument would trivialize and diminish the gravity of genital mutilation as grouping it into the same category as willing body modifications, when in many cases genital mutilation is in fact done without the consent of the person involved. Estar8806 (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Strongly Oppose: If there was a page titled Squares and Rectangles, one wouldn't propose renaming it to merely Rectangle. Despite the fact that all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. Mutilation may be a type of modification, but since modification isn't inherently mutilative, and it is therefore important that it remains clear that they are separate. Not to mention the fact that, while WP:NOTADVOCACY, it is inherently dismissive of genital mutilation not to acknowledge it. Foxtrot620 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Transphobic article
A previous form of the article labeled gender-affirming care as a form of mutilation. Does anyone watch this page? PistachoCash (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * . No, transgender therapies are not mutilation. It's offensive that the article groups it together. PistachoCash (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Preventive medicine and bodily integrity
“Advocacy is often centered on preventive medicine, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure” has been a longstanding sentence on this article. I do not see the harm in bringing to light the benefits vs. the risks. Prcc27 (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Is that actually sourced in the citation? Usually, again, it's just because routine circumcision is unnecessary. KlayCax (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Did you read it? Prcc27 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . It's not anywhere near the primary reason, however. There's a difference. KlayCax (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bodily integrity is a significant issue for both genital mutilation and genital modifications. Removing this sentence would be a disservice to article. Prcc27 (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this is predominately confined to Northern and Eastern Europe. Wikipedia takes a global perspective. Europeans have never been circumcised. KlayCax (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really a Northern European only topic. And there is a significant number of circumcised Europeans; not sure what you are talking about.. Prcc27 (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence implies that Europeans don't circumcise because of ethical issues. That's not the case. Their medical organizations reject the medical necessity of routine neonatal circumcision as a whole. KlayCax (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not imply anything, it just discusses the issue of bodily integrity which is a significant topic for modifications and mutilation. I also think we should discuss why adults choose to get circumcised and how that relates to bodily integrity and perceived personal benefits. That is after all in line with what this article is about. Prcc27 (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I think your "merge" is an improvement versus totally deleting it. However, it still presents a lot of issues. Circumcision is really only controversial in the Nordics and Eastern Europe. Even then, "opposition" isn't generally based upon ethical concerns. It is opposed because European medical organizations think it is utterly ridiculous that Americans (and to a lesser extent) Canadians do it. They simply don't see the medical benefits that are proclaimed. The sentence also necessitates similar ethical discussions surrounding genital alterations on women, sex-reassignment surgeries in the article, and so on and so forth, many of which have gotten far attention than circumcision.
 * The article's supposed to be a very, very broad overview of a topic. KlayCax (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As already stated at the Foreskin article’s talk page, ethics is a topic broadly discussed by major medical organizations, including in the U.S. and Canada. It also has a significant societal impact, even outside of Northern Europe. Prcc27 (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with the opposition, sex-reassignment surgery has much more from a societal perspective. We don't want the article to become a WP:COATRACK. KlayCax (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * COATRACK is an essay, and I don’t think it applies. I already explained that bodily integrity is pertinent to bodily modification and mutilation. Prcc27 (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And opposition to sex-reassignment surgery has been placed into law by many conservative governments since they view it as "mutilation". Yet it would WP: Undue to mention that here. Same principle applies in this case.
 * I'm aware WP: COATRACK is an essay. Yet it provides good reasons against inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is more of a COATRACK than the longstanding wording. Prcc27 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying those things would require mention in every subsection. That would be a WP: COATRACK. KlayCax (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How so? Nearly every medical procedure has a significant societal impact by that definition. KlayCax (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)