₦airaland Forum

seun001:
can Fufu king please do a comparative analysis and also pics will be highly appreciated.cheers



as an aside, can't u just google it.doesnt take so much to do abi?

LOL! Hush now seun001.

Emad, circumcision in men is the removal of the prepuce, also known as the foreskin. Circumcisions can be "loose", as in they leave more foreskin behind, or they can be tight, where a lot of skin is removed.

Circumcision in women has many different types. The least "severe" and the one that is directly comparable to male circumcision, is the removal of the female prepuce, also known as the clitoral hood. Other harsher forms of female circumcision include clitoridectomy, the removal of the clitoris, the excision of the labia minora and then there is infibulation, where everything is scraped off and the vagina is sewn up tight, leaving only a small hold.

bikokwe:
HOW? HOW!!! JUST imagine this scenerio where she will be asked if she will take u as her, husband.
responds: YES I DIDNT.how? your friends come visiting na blunder.a prayer session,blunder. a brief openin speech in a ceremony,blunder,
probably she come like quarrel na d english na him u go vex 4.CAPITAL NO.PLZ. A graduate for that matter.probably ENGLISH

Ok, your English is terrible. I hope you don't think that what you just wrote was good English. It is not. At all.

Seun:
You're going too far. Someone may read that and go ahead to circumcise her baby girl (since it's "the same"

That wasn't my point. My point was if we agree that female genital mutilation is wrong, after reading that story, how is male circumcision different?

An example of circumcision gone wrong:

http://www.genitalintegrity.net/blouch/2007/10/17/my-son-almost-died/



How is this any different from female genital mutilation?

ruescho:
Is there anybody in Nigeria speaking proper English

LOL! That was precisely my reaction. All Nigerians want to speak is pidgin. Their English is dreadful.

Obirin0521:
Outside of the benefit to the (female), sexual partner, I am not sure I have a very strong opinion on this. That said, the Pro-Snip movement seems to have stronger backing from independent medical sources than Contre-snip.

Please see links to articles from Mayo Clinic one of the top leading independent research organizations in the States.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/PR00040

In addition, the official American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) brochure on circ, appears to fall just shy of an endorsement for which the association was criticised by its Contre-snip members. The Assoc stood by its 'benefits of circumcision list'
http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_Circumcision.htm

The only strong backing I see for Contre-snip is from Johns Hopkins which links up with the Australian Contre-Snip organization, CIRC.org, whose strongest argument seems to be based on the bioethics of circumcision without the chief participants' (babies), permission.

And what about all of the complications as a result of circumcision that I posted before and cited in the report in Nigieria? Complications like penile adhesions, amputation of the glans, bleeding, infections, and in some rare cases death. Don't forget meatal stenosis in the baby years and also the fact that penile inflammation is much more likely to happen to circumcised boys.

"This study prospectively documents the incidence of penile inflammation in a consecutive sample of boys according to circumcision status whose visit with the physician included a genital examination in a private primary care pediatric practice in rural northern Wisconsin. Penile inflammation was more common in circumcised than noncircumcised boys, especially in the first 3 years of life (exact odds ratio, 8.01, 95% confidence interval, 31-329.15). When adjusted for the number of genital examinations and age younger than 3 years, exact logistic regression found an adjusted exact odds ratio of 7.91 (95% confidence interval, 1.76-77.66). The study found that rather than protecting against penile inflammation, neonatal circumcision increases the risk of penile inflammation, particularly in boys younger than 3 years old."

http://cpj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/4/329

There is plenty of medical and scientific data out there that supports not circumcising. Which is why NHS and many other health organizations, including Austrailian ones which have banned the practice in many hospitals, have statements that say circumcision is not beneficial.

biggozz:
Hey @ Pilas,

Can you tell me what you acheived by publicising this information?

DO you feel you are so free in this life to talk about everything you know?

I'm never in support of this bad news but I warn you to refrain from this kind of gossip, they can be too dangerous for you.

Allow God to judge the man.

Christianity teaches that everything done in the dark will come to light. Why are you against the truth? Why do you wish to protect the pastor's misbehavior?

walcolm:
@Fufu_King

i looked at your post history on the topic and i take it u are uncircumcised.

be that as it may, you need to understand that the purpose of this thread is not to criticise circumcision or uncircumcision but to look at the concept from various point of views. there's nothing to be touchy about, it's always better to look at things objectively simply for their own merit. there are so many links on this thread that points you to sites where you can read professional views on the topic to make informed decisions and conclusions and i think that is what you shld do.

if you are a professional in the medical field and you made the comment that 'babies can break bones like an adult' (refer to your reply to my earlier post), then somebody needs to revoke your license because you don't know your sh-t but i believ you are not in the medical field.

i can assure you that if you talk to any WHO official concerning those stats, they will tell you that, it is a best estimate and not accurate based on the data available to them at the time of putting together the report. most of the countries in your list are third world countries where medical records are not kept, where health services are poor and people believe more in traditional practises for things like circumcision because for them the driving force behind circumcision is either culture or religion not health, so how do u expect this people to have routine medical practise of circumcision? what u saw in the WHO report is talking about countries where circumcision is part of the routine medical service you get from hospital

Again, what does the status of my privates have to do with this argument?

I am very informed and have read many different viewpoints on this issue. Trust me.

No, I'm not a medical professional, but you said that babies/children cannot break their bones. This is categorically false. The bones of children are more pliable, and therefore less likely to break than an adult, but breaks can and do happen. I should know, my cousin broke his leg when he was 1.

As for your dismissal of the WHO data, I think you're wrong. The data included the Phillipines, which does not perform "routine medical circumcision" but traditional circumcisions. Specifically WHICH countries in doubt of? Are you saying that you do not believe it is a fact that the majority of men in the world are not circumcised?

It's a known fact that the Chinese do not circumcise their boys. In India the only ethnic group that circumcises are the Muslims. The African countries I quoted not only looked at the babies, but also the status of the men. It's well-documented for example, that the practice of circumcision died off in Zimbabwe due to the influence of Christian missionaries who thought the practice barbaric. Latin America and Europe are overwhelmingly non-circumcising areas. Same for Japan and circumcision has declined drastically in Austrailia. In fact, several provinces are BANNING circumcisions. So exactly which countries do you believe practice circumcision but have been mislabeled?

spoilt:
dirt and sweat don't accumulate on circumcised ones?

Not only that, but sweat and dirt do not accumulate in vaginas?

Trust me, I KNOW that ladies do not always smell fresh.

Again, there is a very strong defense mechanism to rationalize and justify the practice of male circumcision, much in the same way advocates of female circumcision do.

LMAO! What kind of nonsense is this?

crazyT:
Since March 2007 the World Health Organization and UNAIDS recognize male circumcision as an effective intervention for HIV prevention, while cautioning that male circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent heterosexual transmission of HIV.


So Seun please don't deprive your son or sons the first chance of protection against HIV, let’s take advantage of any opportunity we have to fight this dreaded disease called AIDS

Circumcision only provides partial protection if you have unprotected sex. If a man wears a condom, whether he is circumcised or not, he has a protection of over 90 percent.

There was also a study from Tanzania that said that circumcised women had a lower chance of contracting HIV:

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse?

Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.

When will we start advocating for the ladies to go under the knife?

seun001:
usually complications develop through clumsiness,inability to adequately care for the wound etc.how do u know Israel has the best circumcisers hmm

Not necessarily, like I said even experienced and skilled professional have these complications arise. Unfortunately when you put knives to genitals, there's no guarantee that things won't end up badly.

And Israel is deemed the best, because they have been doing the practice the longest, they invent many of the tools, and they are one of few countries to have a 100 percent circumcised male population.

seun001:
can see your point.
well if u are educated,u definately want to know the kind of people that is going to perform the circumcision.

Here's the thing: It doesn't matter how skilled you are, these complications are STILL bound to occur. Even in Israel, where you know the "best" circumcisers are, they still have cases of damage to the penis. It's an unavoidable consequence of the procedure that sometimes, somebody is going to get hurt. And some boys die too.

walcolm:
@seun

if one story that is probably not a true life story (i agree most of the scenarios happen in Jewish communities where the wife is non Jew) is what you have read and you have already made a decision that will deeply impact your unborn sons, then it's a shame.

i don't care about longstanding traditions or religious beliefs influencing a decision. i care more about the proven and documented health advantages of the procedure! heck, the people trying to make a case against male cirucmcision are only talking about the effect it has on the level of orgasm experienced by men and they don't even have clear-cut data to show that a circumcised male enjoys a lower degree of orgasm when compared to an uncircumcised male

for the record, a baby feels less pain and heals faster than an adult because the baby is still growing rapidly! nerve endings, organs, tissues etc are all still growing between 0 days - 365 days and probbly more. a baby cannot even break a bone!!! you know why? cause the bones are soft and still growing. so all the talk of the pain the baby will feel is not enough reason to not circumcise a baby

if you say you want to leave the decision to your sons and it ever becomes medical necessary for them to do it, you would have contributed to causing them more pain (the actual procedure pain you wanted to avoid and that of the medical condition that necesitated the procedure as a medical remedy)

finally, the world has a population of about 6.6billion, active muslims account for over 1.1billion people, active orthodox & protestant christians who also believe in circumcision account for about 2 billion, so where did the data of 3:1 ratio of uncircumcised to circumcised males come from?

so, if for long term health reasons, you plan to subject your unborn sons to vaccinations and other preventive health procedures, you might as well go the whole length because, even though circumcision started out as a religious practise, it has been found to actually have more health basis than religious basis and is presently classified as a preventive health procedure

I can't even be bothered to address the rest of your post because you actually said that babies cannot break their bones. Let me assure that that is PATENTLY FALSE.

As for your questioning of whether or not there are more uncircumcised men in the world than not, the WHO states that only 30 percent of the world's male population is circumcised. Here is a list of the countries that do not routinely circumcise their boys or the majority of men are not circumcised:

Rwanda
Burundi
Zambia
Cape Verde
Zimbabwe
Malawi
Botswana
Namibia
Swaziland
Canary,Is. (Spain).
Mexico
Belize
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama
Cuba
Jamaica
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Puerto Rico
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
French Guiana
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Trinidad and Tobago
Venezuela
Russia
Mongolia
China
North Korea
India
Sri Lanka
Nepal
Bhutan
Burma
Thailand
Laos
Vietnam
Cambodia
Japan
Papua New Guinea
Iceland
United Kingdom
Ireland
Sweden
Norway
Finland
Denmark
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Portugal
Spain
France
Switzerland
Italy
Netherlands
Belgium
Slovakia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic
Hungary
Greece
Bulgaria
Romania
Moldova
Ukraine
Austria
Belarus
Russia
Austrailia
New Zealand

Mongue:
I'm amazed at how people are so shocked by someone being anti circumsion.

My privates is fully intact and I am very happy to have it that way, I don't cut any other parts of my body off so why should anyone mess with the most important one!!! It was put there for a reason, let it STAY!!

I'm amazed as well. I applaud you for standing up and standing for what is right. Bodily integrity is everyone's god-given right.

JeSoul:
Siena
       
   thank you jare Siena , my expression is one close to frustration when a simple question cannot be answered. plus anyone who thinks I'm cool must be TWICE as cool!

Fufuking,
   wow, you wrote all that and still did not answer a simple question. I will resist the urge to quote and respond and correct all you've said because you've gone waaayy off base and point. I don't want to turn this thread into something else other than about simple circumcision.

Nairalanders,
for those of you who believe in God, please can you answer this simple question: does God ever ASK or COMMAND us to do anything that is bad for or harmful to us? Yes or No?

  if the answer is no, then that means since He asked the Isrealites to circumsize themselves, it must not have been bad for them - spiritually or physically.

  End of story, simple, kapish, finish. I don't know why fufuking is bringing up all kind of wahala and quotes and etcera. I will let my fellow Nairalanders be the judge of this discussion. I'm out!

Tell that to the boys who suffer from penile adhesions, meatal stenosis and glans amputation. Look at the report I posted. If that is not physical harm, then I don't know what is.

I've answered all of your questions, the problem is the answer is not to your liking. You believe that it is impossible for God to have commanded an act which might have been harmful. I do not. Especially the when it comes to the Old Testament. If there was nothing wrong with the Old Testament ways, why did Jesus come and change everything? Thank you.

And you didn't answer any of my questions, which parts of the Old Testament have been thrown out and which have we kept as Christians?

JeSoul:
I'm not switching, it has been my whole point all along! that God would NEVER ask us to do anything that was bad for us! and you know you would be wrong to say God would ask anyone to do anything that was harmful to them. You keep saying its not the "christian" thing to do like the bible says we shouldn't, whereas the bible simply says spiritually you're not better of if you do or not! It doesn't say physically we're no better off!!  how many times can I say this!
[/QUOTE]

What does the physical have to do with a Christian act?! I say it is not the Christian thing to do, because circumcision has no value spiritually in Christianity. How many times do I have to say this?

Galatians 5:2-6:

Pay close attention to me, Paul, when I tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no use to you. I point out once more to all who receive circumcision that they are bound to the law in its entirety.

The New Testament even refers to circumcision as mutilation:

Philippians 3:2-4

Beware of unbelieving dogs. Watch out for workers of evil. Be on guard
against those who mutilate. It is we who are the circumcision, who worship
in the spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus rather than putting our
trust in the flesh though I can be confident even there.  If anyone
thinks he has a right to put his trust in external evidence, all the more can I!


 
  [QUOTE] God killed the whole world because of sin. God is and was harsh and cruel because He hates anything sinful. What does that have to do with circumcision? what did God ask anyone to do that was bad for them there?
God does not ASK or COMMAND us to do anything that is bad for us period! and you know it! [/QUOTE]

I know that Jesus, our lord and savior, does not like sin but he still loves all sinners. He does not kill us because we sin.

 [QUOTE]You're quoting OT verses that I don't think are relevant to this discussion. I already said there parts of the OT that still apply today and parts that don't. I don't want to diverge by asking where did God ever God "slay people without explanation and orders them to sleep with their brother's wives"? all those have explanations. people died usually because of sin, and they slept with 'brothers wives' (only when the brother had actually DIED) in order to create offspring for the dead relative. A practice that the NT rules out today. [/QUOTE]
And who are you that you get to decide which parts of the Old Testament are relevant and which parts are not? How come circumcision is still valid, but the sleeping with a brother's wife, even after death, isn't? Where is that written down? Who gets to decide that?



[QUOTE]Anyways all this is really besides the point. Please lets stay on topic. It doesn't really pertain to the real discussion and my real point: that God has never and will never ask us to do anything that is harmful to us! including circumcision!!!

All I can continue to repeat, is that the Old Testament God was brutal and vengeful. I follow the New Testament and Jesus Christ. In the NT, God was forgiving and patient. If God didn't ask us to do things that were harmful, why then did Jesus come and radicalize and replace many of the old ways? Most likely because they were harmful.

JeSoul:
Fufuking,
you're missing my point, I'm not talking about anything spiritual now, or that we're not jews or that it's a new covenant etc, I'm talking strictly physical. If circumcision is so bad why did God tell them to do it? He WOULD not ask any of His people to do anything that was harmful to them.[
Yes the bible says that circumcision has no SPIRITUAL VALUE it does not say that physically it is no good.
would God ask the Isrealites to do something that was potentialy harmful to themselves? healthwise? don't we serve a good God?

Any christian knows that circumcision has no significance in Christ, it does not make God like you better.


Do you still obey the 10 commandments? there's still parts of the OT that are just as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago. We have a new covenant but does that mean you throw out the OT completely? No. There's parts that are still useful.

BESIDES all this is not my point, answer this one question my brother:
WOULD GOD ASK ANYONE, AT ANYTIME TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TO THEM I assume you say no. Therefore He knows that circumcision is not harmful, hence He woulda never asked them to do it in the first place, covenant or no covenant!

You're switching the discussion.

Our discussion was on whether or not circumcision was a "christian" thing to do. According to the New Testament, it is not.

As for whether or not God would ask us to do something was harmful to us, I can only point you to the fact that the God of the Old Testament was VERY HARSH and quite CRUEL. Remember he drowned and killed the whole world, leaving Noah.

And let me leave you with this quote from Genesis:

[QUOTE]
38:7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 
38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. [/QUOTE]

The Old Testament God slays people without explanation and orders them to sleep with their brother's wives.

Also, Leviticus, which is the OT chapter that commands circumcision, also states that women that give birth to children are unclean. They have to follow a certain ritual to become clean again. Do you follow this?

[QUOTE]12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. 
12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. 
12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove,
for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:     
12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 
12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
[/QUOTE]


That is why I'm a Christian, not a Jew. I follow the New Testament.

JeSoul:
that's just what you think, your personal opinion. And since you quoted scripture, I'll assume you're a christian, if circumcision, physically, is so bad why did God ask Abraham and ALL the Isrealites to do it?   No the bible doesn't prohibit it, it requires it in the OT. And I'll even go far as to say it was for more reasons than just a spiritual act. You no no say God smart pass all human reasoning? there's a reason he asked them to do it in the first place.

So I wouldn't say I recommend christians don't circumcize jus because it is on no real value in Christ, I believe it is of value physically.

I'm confused by your statement. What value do you find in circumcision?

The Bible specifically says that circumcision of the flesh has NO spiritual value if you are a Christian. None.

God commanded the sons of Abraham to do this as a sign of a covenant with him. But guess what? Christians are not Jews. We are not bound by the laws that they live by.

And circumcision has no bearing on your standing with God. Remember God favored Adam and his children, and they were not circumcised.

Do you still sacrifice animals to appease God? That was done in the Old Testament as well. If you accept Jesus Christ, you no longer live by the Old Testament. Jesus and the New Testament replaced many things that the Old Testament did. For example, the Old Testament commands an eye for an eye, whereas Jesus says turn the other cheek.

seun001:
u can challenge any post,thats why its a forum.

You are the only one that has sounded sarcastic and leaning towards bitterness about other peeps opinions on this thread.
anyways,suppose somebody just takes one of your replys the other way round,fight don start be that ehn.
anyways its not like u aint got a point in wot u are putting across but your wording is the problem.cheers

I'll admit, some of my wording was harsh, but that was in response to what I felt was offensive wording by others.

But I'll try to work on my wording. Cheers.

Siena:
@ Fufu King: Hey, it's just a friendly disscussion! There are no prizes being awarded, and it's not "majority wins the vote"!

Just don't get too passionate about different opinions, that's all, we're all friends here. But, what you said to Caradona was a bit below the belt, and not very kind!

But just one question, and I'm not out to offend - are you circumsised, or not? You don't have to answer, but it would just help some understand you a wee bit better.

Are we all posting our status?

I am circumcised, but it was not my choice.

If I were uncircumcised would that mean my opinion was invalid?

And I don't think my comment to Caradona was offensive. I just wondered aloud if her male sex partner found her vagina to have a pleasant taste. That's all.

seun001:
nobody is upset,
and as i see it,peeps state their reason for not accepting wot the poster said and stated their reasons.
u don't have to be sarcastic about their reasons afterall everybody is entitled to their opinion.

And if I disagree with their reasons or think their reasons are unfounded, I am not allowed to challenge them?

I'm not the only one who has been sarcastic in this thread, so I still don't understand why I'm being chastised.

And I agree, everyone is entitled to their opinion. That doesn't mean they are entitled to having their opinion go unchallenged.

Isn't that what a message board forum is for? To debate and discuss?

seun001:
@Fufuking,
are u uncircumcised? because i see no reason why u turned this topic into a personal stuff that u keep vigil with.wot am i supposed to do,hmmm,follow the link and come back to report eh!abegi.i aint cut out for that.

and u are supposed to see the funny side to wot caradona is posting not taking it as a personal affront.

in fact wot the hell is wrong with u hmm.

Where did I turn it personal?

Is this not a message board forum? What is the problem, is it because I am advocating for the minority opinion?

I truly don't understand why it's a problem to say that males shouldn't be circumcised. People begin to get upset with that opinion.

Caradona:
@TOPIC

When I gave a man a Head, it tasted awful and smelly because he wasn't Circumcised.
I recommend all men to get circumcised 'cause it looks beautiful without the extra flesh which feels cold in the mouth.

I wonder what he thought your vagina tasted like.

JeSoul:
oh okay I understand where you're coming from a little better. Going from your words here "THIS PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT CIRCUMCISION IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN THING TO DO" it sounded like you were saying christians shouldn't circumcise.

Well it holds no significance in the faith, and I don't think they should do it. So I am saying that Christians shouldn't circumcise, but the Bible doesn't prohibit it.

seun001:
Fufuking,

am not interested in any jamb questions.

I can see clearly now. Your non-answers provide speak loudly for you.

JeSoul:
Fufuking,

     you need to chillax! I've been reading everyone's comments and you're attacking everyone who disagrees. I think you're taking this waaayyy too personal. It’s just a discussion. No matter what anyone says, no matter how many statistics or medical whatever, everyone will still believe what they want to believe. Finish.

 ps. You’re right circumcision is not a chrisitian thing but you’re misinterpreting these verses to say something it is not saying. You said

No. It is saying as a Christian and in God’s sight being circumcised or uncircumcised does not matter but obeying God is what counts NOT[/color][color=#990000][/color][color=#990000][/color][color=#990000] that you should not be circumcised or Christians should not be circumcised. Abeg no twist scripture fit your own agenda.

I am not TWISTING scripture, people are saying that they circumcise because of Christianity, but Christianity point blank says, that circumcision of the flesh is of NO WORTH to Christ. Therefore, it is unnecessary. If you do it, you do not do it in the name of Christianity. What have I twisted? I didn't say Christians weren't allowed to be circumcised, just that doing it in the name of Christianity is false because it is of no worth to Christ.

seun001:
oga,i know an uncircumsized organ when i see one.comes to questions if u have actually watched pornos before.

http://videos.cuckold-wives.com/hosted-galleries5/10.jpg

Circumcised or not?

http://www.homenscalientes1.oi.com.br/jefferson/yunnyA007.jpg

Circumcised or not?

Tribalism is not only a Nigerian problem. It's an African problem. For some reason Africans cling to it feverishly. Sad. The continent is just simply plagued with complexes and syndromes.

Secular music all the way!

[size=16pt]Did you know?[/size]

That in a study conducted in Ibadan, Nigeria, there was a complication rate of 20.2 percent on all the male circumcisions performed?

Complications included: redundant foreskin, excessive skin, skin bridges, amputation of glans (the head of the p.enis!), buried p.enis, hemorrhage

The study is included in this report, it's called Okeke et. al : http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2490-7-4.pdf

Can someone explain to me, why they're okay with continuing the practice of male circumcision, with a 20.2 percent complication rate, which includes amputation of the glans? How is that not mutilation?

Fikzy, I was just pointing out that if you're in favor male circumcision because it is rooted in culture, religion and (nigerian) society, you cannot discount female circumcision then, as it has mainly the same roots. That's all.