Those parts aren’t affected by infections, the tissue on the inside of the urinary tract is.
-
-
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
How about under the clitoral hood? Why don't we cut off their prepuce and expose the clitoris for the same reason we expose the glans in males? It'd keep things in there all nice and dried out and desensitized, which y'all seem to think is a good thing for some reason.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
Doesn’t prevent infection though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
How would you know that? lol. Have there been studies on it?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
I mean, from what I gather the clitoral hood isn’t a part of the urinary tract.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
The clit hood can get infected. Surgery isn't done for this condition.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dlindenii @KhazWolf and
Is what I’m saying. You can’t do surgery to reduce female UTI rates. Female circumcision has no effect. However, whilst nobody “agrees” on the number, there’s a fair few papers detailing how male circumcision reduces rates of further infection.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
First of all, we don't know if removing the labia would reduce female UTI rates. But we consider it unethical to study that. That's sexism. Also, my example wasn't UTI, but clit hood infection.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dlindenii @KhazWolf and
Labiaplasty is usually plastic surgery. There was a case study cited here by somebody showing it being used to treat chronic UTIs. That’s why I used it as an exception, because it is a legal exception to FGM occasionally used to treat abnormalities. Like circumcision is to MGM.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
Two key points here you are missing: in this case the female cutting was therapeutic. Also, it was consensual. RIC is never consensual and never therapeutic. If male circ is therapeutic and ALL OTHER OPTIONS EXHAUSTED, then I'm OK with it. I doubt it's ever truly necessary.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Oh it can be, but the numbers, from what I understand are about 1 in 16,000. Just 0.00006% of men will need circumcision for a medical reason.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.