Talk:Infibulation/Archive 1

bdsm
More info about the BDSM practice would be welcome. -Etoile 22:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Infibulation vs. pharoic
The article for female circumcition calls infibulation and pharoic circumcition the same name, whilst it's differentiated in this explanatory stub, to which links run. Someone with insight should make a standard. Preferably, in my opinion, keep both definitions to ensure correctness, and then unity can be created later. Madskile 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Where?
In which countries/cultures does this practice occur? __meco (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Urination
How do you pee like that? 69.133.5.67 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak well english
The male infibulation is called sircunsition? For me yes. Is a religious in jews and muslim for ex. and a medical practic in a preputial obliteration called "fimosis".--CavalierJedi (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Male “infibulation”?
How could the suturing of the foreskin prevent a man from penetrating?

2009-06-23 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.


 * Negative Reinforcement Id imagine. Also any sort of tugging on it would also tug on the sutures.
 * Itd be ridiculously painful and probably bloody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.249.206 (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Fibula (penile) into Infibulation. I think the content in Fibula (penile) can easily be explained in the context of Infibulation, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Infibulation. Demt1298 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Infibulation clearly defines itself as being about a form of female genital mutilation where all the external parts are removed, everything about the (completely different) male practise should be removed from the article. This is a case of two completly different things simply having a similar name.★Trekker (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Lean oppose: given the lead and first section of the proposed target, these topics, while related, don't look like they're describing the same sort of thing. It looks as though the second section of this article might be better merged into Fibula (penile) instead.  The two would still need to link to one another, but they seem to be describing distinct practices undertaken for somewhat different, if related reasons, by different cultures, at least one of which is restricted to a particular time period—or at least mostly so, given the discussion.  It's possible to treat the two together, but it feels awkward the way that this article does it now, and merging the two articles as proposed would probably make that worse.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, more persuaded by P Aculeius's reasoning than he is. Penile infibulation was, as I understand it (barely), neither regarded nor intended as mutilation. However, I would go for merging Fibula (penile) with Kynodesme; the current article says that penis-binding was primarily a Roman practice, and I'm not sure that it was (the image at the top of the supposedly Roman penile fibula article is Greek, is it not?). It would be more useful to discuss the Greek and Roman practices together, after some discussion of possible titles Penis binding in Classical antiquity?, as the precise techniques of binding with or without piercing can be surveyed but are less the point than the overlapping cultural reasons they did this. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Section Move Proposal
I propose that sections Male section of this article be moved to Fibula (penile). These sections are more related to the topic of Fibula (penile). Demt1298 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)