Restoring Virginity

[Lonan3]

LINK TO TIMES ARTICLE

 

A debate is raging among doctors over Muslim women who demand operations to reconstitute their hymens before marriage and medical certificates stating that they are virgins.

The controversy has flared in France, where gynaecologists say that they are facing a growing number of requests from women desperate to avoid the repudiation that can follow the loss of chastity.

The phenomenon, which is also dividing doctors in other European countries, America and Africa, is denounced by critics as a sign of social regression driven by Islamic fundamentalists.

Jacques Lansac, Chairman of the French National College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians, is leading the campaign against what he describes as “an attack on the dignity of women”. He has also issued advice against hymenoplasty – a surgical operation that involves reconstructing the membrane usually broken during the first act of sexual intercourse.

 

Okay, so there is an element of deception involved in convincing would-be husbands that they are getting 'undamaged goods,' (husbands who have never had the same restraints put on their conduct), but is the deception any greater than the bust enhancements and nose jobs, where most surgeons seem to have no moral qualms about pocketing the rewards?

Is it a genuine fear of pandering to Islamic fundamentalists? Or is there a case to be made that these girls will suffer terribly if its discovered that they had a sexual relationship and that, therefore, the surgery should be allowed?

[Rog]

It could be the thin end of the wedge.

 

Once reconstructive surgery of the hymen for religious reasons is accepted what will the next form of genital surgery be?

 

Female genital Mutilation would not have such an uphill battle to become legalised if there was a precedence such as this.

 

Here’s a WHO website that gives some details about this disgusting practice so popular amongst some mohammedans.

 

(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ )

[Mr. Sausages]

I'd have thought you'd be quite familiar with genital mutilation in the name of religion.

[thebees]

Thats virgin on the ridiculous These women take the biscuit, Born again virgin is it? (born again, died again, born again...some latin word that means recurring)

[When Skies Are Grey]

It could be the thin end of the wedge.

 

Phnaar phnaar....Frankie Howard would be pleased!

[Rog]

I'd have thought you'd be quite familiar with genital mutilation in the name of religion.

 

Male circumcision serves a practical purpose and now it seems a medical purpose as well as a circumcised male is far less likely to be infected by HIV/AIDS than an uncircumcised male.

 

Research presently being undertaken seems to be showing that the infection by other pathogens is also reduced in the case of the circumcised male.

 

It is interesting how many things that are to the benefit of the individual or to society are enshrined in religion, and how few are actually only performed out of religious dictate.

 

One marked exception is that of female circumcision which serves no practical purpose and is positively detrimental to the health of a woman.

[John Wright]

Nothing wrong with these ops privately, have sex, want to be a virgin, well pay.

 

Isn't the question really about resources within the health service

 

Cosmetic operations, except reconstructions after accidents and necessary surgery, private only

 

Fertilty treatment private only.

 

We expect far too mouch without considering the cost. That means the rationing of non elective surgery for people who really need it.

 

If the elective becomes necessary because of psychological resaons then we can, almost all, pay for BUPA as a safeguard. Its cheaper than 10 ciggies or a pint per day for someone in their 30's

[ans]

Male circumcision serves a practical purpose and now it seems a medical purpose as well as a circumcised male is far less likely to be infected by HIV/AIDS than an uncircumcised male.

 

So you were circumcised for health reasons then Rog?

[Rog]

Male circumcision serves a practical purpose and now it seems a medical purpose as well as a circumcised male is far less likely to be infected by HIV/AIDS than an uncircumcised male.

 

So you were circumcised for health reasons then Rog?

 

Actually – yes.

 

When I was born circumcision was quite a common procedure In the UK. In 1945, when I was born, around 25 per cent of boys were circumcised shortly after birth.

 

My old mum told me how irrespective of what religion we had been I would have had the chop.

 

For one thing a circumcised man is able to give greater pleasure to a woman during sex, and women report a much higher proportion of orgasms during intercourse when comparing their experience of circumcised and non-circumcised men.

[Cret]

Male circumcision serves a practical purpose and now it seems a medical purpose as well as a circumcised male is far less likely to be infected by HIV/AIDS than an uncircumcised male.

 

Research presently being undertaken seems to be showing that the infection by other pathogens is also reduced in the case of the circumcised male.

 

I've heard similar stuff quoted but no-one ever seems to agree.

 

The medical risks and potential benefits of neonatal circumcision have been studied. The British Medical Association, states that “there is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.”[66] Studies making cost-benefit analyses comparing circumcision complications with the potential gain in expected longevity, and the medical costs of circumcision compared with the expected reduction in lifetime health costs have varied. Some found a small net benefit,[77][78] some found a small net decrement,[79][80] and others found that the benefits and risks of circumcision balanced each other out and suggest the circumcision decision "most reasonably be made on nonmedical factors."[81]

 

I certainly would not want my intimate parts mutilated on the offchance that it may possibly mean slightly less risk of infection if I was stupid enough to go messing around 'without a hat on'.

[ans]

My old mum told me how irrespective of what religion we had been I would have had the chop.

 

Irrespective of any medical benefits you may have received, you would have had it anyway. Let's not dismiss religion as the primary driver here just because it suits you.

[Rog]

My old mum told me how irrespective of what religion we had been I would have had the chop.

 

Irrespective of any medical benefits you may have received, you would have had it anyway. Let's not dismiss religion as the primary driver here just because it suits you.

 

Wrong again Ans.

 

Later in life when discussing things in general as one does with ones parents she did say that she had been concerned that the possibility of neo-Nazism emerging was at thetime thought to be very real by many Jews and that being circumcised was one of the signs that the Nazis had used to decide if further investigation should be made of people that they rounded up.

 

In spite of that she considered that the health risks outweighed the possible future political risks, at least in the UK, and so she went ahead.

 

As for circumcision and the reduction in the likelihood of being infected by the HIV/AIDS virus, just Google circumcision aids’ and read what’s there.

[Mr. Sausages]

But HIV / Aids is good isn't it? Wipes out those who commit immoral acts. You don't commit immoral acts, do you Rog?

[ans]

In spite of that she considered that the health risks outweighed the possible future political risks, at least in the UK, and so she went ahead.

 

What publicised health benefits were there in 1945?

[Lonan3]

Wrong again Ans.

 

Later in life when discussing things in general as one does with ones parents she did say that she had been concerned that the possibility of neo-Nazism emerging was at thetime thought to be very real by many Jews and that being circumcised was one of the signs that the Nazis had used to decide if further investigation should be made of people that they rounded up.

 

In spite of that she considered that the health risks outweighed the possible future political risks, at least in the UK, and so she went ahead.

 

As for circumcision and the reduction in the likelihood of being infected by the HIV/AIDS virus, just Google circumcision aids’ and read what’s there.

 

Is this going to become a habit - quoting your mother whenevr you're losing an argument? As you did in the thread on independence.

Quite honestly, Rog, while I wouldn't wish to impugn the lady in any way, it appears that you have either misunderstood her words, invented them, or she has told you what she thought you wanted to hear.

 

Actually, apart from Austria, I can't find anywhere that neo-nazism was gaining much ground before the 1960s. And since you were born shortly after WWII, her theory doesn't really make a lot of sense.