http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Afri ... 38,00.html

Tips of boys' penises cut off

22/06/2007 14:01 - (SA)

Mthatha - Two boys have been rescued from a Transkei initiation school after a so-called traditional surgeon cut off the ends of their penises, the Eastern Cape health department said on Friday.

Spokesperson Sizwe Kupelo said the boys, plus a third youth, were found at the village of Swazini near Port St Johns.

"Their condition was terrible. With two of them, their glans penis had been removed by the traditional surgeon," he said.

When police and department officials went to fetch the boys, they were threatened by the nurses whose role is to care for newly-circumcised initiates.

They had to call for backup from the Port St Johns police.

Kupelo said the boys were now in a critical but stable condition at the Nelson Mandela Academic Hospital in Mthatha.

One of them had developed such severe sepsis that he could not walk.

Kupelo said the surgeon was arrested a week ago, before the boys were rescued, and was being charged with contravening the province's circumcision laws.

'The Crocodile' arrested

Kupelo also said a man nicknamed "the Crocodile" was arrested in Mdantsane on Thursday.

He was allegedly part of a group of surgeons who circumcised at least 96 youths.

This brought the total number of arrests of unregistered traditional surgeons since last week to 17.

Another surgeon arrested earlier in the week had confessed to police and department officials that he illegally circumcised about 200 boys over a period of two weeks in the Port St Johns area.

"The chances are a number of [those] boys have been infected with HIV," Kupelo said.

Great Chthulhu Christ, since when did circumcision involve cutting of the Glans? Is this some kind of South African insanity that I'm not familiar with? I know that cutting off the clitoris is a grand old tradition in many parts of Africa, but I've never heard of cutting off the glans for anything other than medical or recreational reasons.

Is this the result of a half-witted "doctor" with no training, or was this guy some kind of psycho or pedophile or something?

markdf (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:37 pm Great Chthulhu Christ, since when did circumcision involve cutting of the Glans? Is this some kind of South African insanity that I'm not familiar with? I know that cutting off the clitoris is a grand old tradition in many parts of Africa, but I've never heard of cutting off the glans for anything other than medical or recreational reasons.

Is this the result of a half-witted "doctor" with no training, or was this guy some kind of psycho or pedophile or something?

Well, I dont know what the fuss is all about. Actually these practitioners are only being politically correct in seeing both sexes are treated equally. What was done to these boys is similar to what is done in a female "circumcision" in as much as it removed significant male sensory bits which are the equivalent to the bits removed in a female circumcision. Doesn't this make it more fair, a case of "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"? If the goal of this mutilation that is carried out on women is to eliminate the pleasurable part of the sexual act and hence the tendency to stray, why should not the same parameters be applied to the males of such societies? After all wouldn't it be only fair that the same level of circumcision be applied to both sexes?? I bet that if the same sensory bits were routinely removed in male circumcision i.e. the glans, in the name of equality, you would see a lot less enthusiasm for circumcision as a sexual management practice.

The way that I read (interpreted) that story was that the guy was a total klutz and made a mess of things by cutting away too much. That is what got him in trouble.

Kangan (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:49 pm The way that I read (interpreted) that story was that the guy was a total klutz and made a mess of things by cutting away too much. That is what got him in trouble.

What got him in trouble, aside from botched surgeries, is the fact that the South African government is very aggressively trying to stamp out the entire practice of circumcision by such "surgeons."

Francis (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:39 pm Well, I dont know what the fuss is all about. Actually these practitioners are only being politically correct in seeing both sexes are treated equally. What was done to these boys is similar to what is done in a female "circumcision" in as much as it removed significant male sensory bits which are the equivalent to the bits removed in a female circumcision. Doesn't this make it more fair, a case of "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"? If the goal of this mutilation that is carried out on women is to eliminate the pleasurable part of the sexual act and hence the tendency to stray, why should not the same parameters be applied to the males of such societies? After all wouldn't it be only fair that the same level of circumcision be applied to both sexes?? I bet that if the same sensory bits were routinely removed in male circumcision i.e. the glans, in the name of equality, you would see a lot less enthusiasm for circumcision as a sexual management practice.

As soon as anyone tries to do anything "politically correct", a fuss will be made. It's as inevitable as the tide.

Male orgasm is vital for the accomplishment of reproduction; without the glans, male orgasm generally require means besides intercourse. And while that's perfectly fine for sane folks like you and I (assuming that you're comparitively sane), for religious fundamentalists? No way. For followers of Jehovah, it's intercourse or nothin'.

Still... anyone else here get a bit of a thrill when considering the idea of going to a swingers party where the guys and galls are all "headless"? Too hot; way too hot. I'm getting a shiver just thinking about. Stubby little flattops and clams without their pearl...

....

markdf (imported) wrote: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:37 am Male orgasm is vital for the accomplishment of reproduction; without the glans, male orgasm generally require means besides intercourse. And while that's perfectly fine for sane folks like you and I (assuming that you're comparitively sane), for religious fundamentalists? No way. For followers of Jehovah, it's intercourse or nothin'...

NOW there IS an IDEA!

They don't need to reproduce anyways, do they?

In case you are wondering what this thread is all about, CLICK HERE. (http://www.consumptionjunction.com/cont ... 1&page=511)

It is pretty GROSS, so if you have a weak stomach, don't look...

...I wonder where they get this stuff...:shakemitk

That one's been buzzing around the 'Net since 1997 at least.

Barbaric...gives me the heebie-jeebies just watching it.

Francis (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:39 pm Well, I dont know what the fuss is all about. Actually these practitioners are only being politically correct in seeing both sexes are treated equally. What was done to these boys is similar to what is done in a female "circumcision" in as much as it removed significant male sensory bits which are the equivalent to the bits removed in a female circumcision. Doesn't this make it more fair, a case of "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"? If the goal of this mutilation that is carried out on women is to eliminate the pleasurable part of the sexual act and hence the tendency to stray, why should not the same parameters be applied to the males of such societies? After all wouldn't it be only fair that the same level of circumcision be applied to both sexes?? I bet that if the same sensory bits were routinely removed in male circumcision i.e. the glans, in the name of equality, you would see a lot less enthusiasm for circumcision as a sexual management practice.

Women don't need an orgasm to have a child. Men does. So it's not the same. But I'm all for equal treatment, as long as the treatment is NICE, not vice. And whatever, children have nothing to do with sex.