Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,866 Excellent

About BlueDreams

  • Rank
    If only there was blue cocoa too
  • Birthday 05/17/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Under the mountains
  • Interests
    People, art, politics, diet, social issues, living and breathing, etc

Recent Profile Visitors

2,980 profile views
  1. BlueDreams


    I can't say much on this either. Most the people I work with have 1-3 partners in their lifetime with little comparisons and a number of psychosocial concerns that effect their sense of pleasure in each of these relationships. Plus I've never asked them how many of their previous partners were circumcised and whether they felt that added to their pleasure. As noted, someone mentioned that women before and after their adult partners were circumcised didn't note a difference. And I've only had my husband. My gut reaction says no diff. Because I've had people who are coming in for sexual problems/pain whose husbands were and weren't circumcised. There are also several female-oriented/relationship factors that can effect this: time of the month, level of arousal, method of penetration, relational struggles, body changes (such as pregnancy, birth, breasfeeding, or menopause) etc. Most my clients no matter their partner's intactness, use lubricants to some degree to help with the experience. On your "IMO" from what I've learned, that is likely too broad of a brush. Human's through time have practiced forms of body modifications on just about every part of the visible body in so many different ways. They demarcated culture, community, ideals of beauty, sexual expectations/obligations, status, rites of passage, etc. And we still do it. The same form of demarcation in one community could have a drastically different meaning in another. I doubt there is simply one ultimate original reason for all male and female forms of circumcision. With luv, BD
  2. BlueDreams


    I've been reading studies for both forms with sexual pleasure. With men the general trend seems to be no difference when the men were volunteers who were not going in for surgery for specific health concern. With women it's more a mixed arena. I would find a couple of sources that say they have similar results and others that say there was decreased pleasure or increased pain...Though both noted limited research in general and some major limitations. In even some of the research that I was reading that suggested little difference, I was also seeing a number of things and influences that I know have effected women's arousal, desire, and pleasure in uncut women in my office...such as increased risk of chronic/recurrent UTI's (one study noted that cultures where female circumcision is normal, often these experiences are also normalized), trauma responses, or extremely painful first few times...these are especially potent in cultures that de-emphasizes women's s*xuality as equally valued/important (such as our own). with luv, bD
  3. BlueDreams


    I'm also a slow poster.....more like glacial at times. This will likely be inadequate in responding to the points you've already made due to time constraints. But I really appreciate what Calm has mentioned about how male circumcision needs to stand alone as an argument. Part of the gender bias you mention to is likely due to the fact that in the US and likely most other cultures that practice male circumsion, female circumcision has always been a generally rare practice. There's a reason people could repackage labioplasty to sell it as a form of plastic surgery for women with low self-esteem about their genitals than as a a form of genital cutting. We don't have a sense of baggage or immediate concern around female genital cutting. If you want to compare....what may be more helpful is to compare approaches for fighting FGM in cultures where it is expected and learn from those, to discuss our own battles. Outright bans prior often led to a 2nd generation pushback and return to the practice. Working within the cultural context has been imperative to chipping at the practice and stopping it from happening. It is a lot slower, but it is also more effective long term. comparing practices that most people in the US see as barbaric to a practice most people who grew up in the US find normative or had done to themselves is likely not going to work. Talking about the most extreme practices of MGM that don't occur here but in far away places won't work. The habits you mentioned with the most dangerous results entail unsafe methodology that most people in the US wouldn't have. Though the tissue removed may be more comparative, anatomically to FGM type 1's....it would still be within the realm a MGM's, the worst case scenarios when talking about circumcisions. It's in essence MGM's type 3's Picture this from the battle against FGM's....if you went into a culture where type 1's are prevalent and type 3's are unheard of but you're giving information and facts that are largely true for 3's, the information is likely going to be dismissed or ignored, because it doesn't apply to them. They can stay on the moral high ground and say "well thank heavens that we've never done something so barbaric and harmful to our children...." And they'd generally be right. They didn't sew their daughter's vulva shut. They just did (to them) a non-invasive clip that for many of them likely had few effects that they're aware of. So sure it was painful, but avoiding pain in many cultures doesn't fly the same way it does for a number of western cultures. Translated to the US, pointing out to "true" forms of genital mutilation from an international perspective where most of the dangers apply to adults/post adolescence and more tied to the method/who is doing the cutting won't work. They can comfortably maintain a difference between them and said practices by pointing out that the way it's done is not the same thing...and "thank heavens we use medical professionals and methods that make the process overall safe." And they'd generally be right. Also i know that you flat out reject the research by WHO....but it's on fairly measily grounds, IMO, and for others who don't share your discomfort and pain about a more coerced choice for their child's circumcisions that capacity to reject would happen for the research article you gave me. Remember I don't actually want circumcision for my family. I don't need to be convinced that It's unnecessary. But I'm not convinced by the research you gave for this conclusion.* And if i'm not convinced, people who are more invested in male circumcision (They have it done, want it done for their children, or already chose to have it done for their sons) are likely not going to be persuaded by it either. One last thing: On the bold, my response was just a simple summary of what my uncircumcised husband responded when I asked what was more sensitive to him. He, as "any uncircumcised male" per se, found it humorous to assume the foreskin was. On s*exual pleasure...that is literally my bread and butter. I deal with s*xual pain all the time...for women. I can't remember the last time a man talked about his own sexual pain from any form of appropriate stimulus (as in, their partner or an unrelated accident didn't do something that caused sexual pain or damage to function). I've never seen/heard a difference from them on their sexual experiences that points to me to the belief that circumcised males are at a distinct disadvantage from the uncircumcised males. You are right that there is a heavy degree of personal perception to pleasure for both sexes. BUT I do find it problematic to directly parallel s*xual function and response. The systems started the same, but certainly didn't end the same and the experiences, capacities, concerns, etc can vary drastically due to this. This is my assessment from my job, without going into graphic detail....but I have never met the male equivalent of the woman in the documentary who had a childhood hoodectomy (I believe) and still has extreme sensitivity problems during s*x. And I largely suspect has had to do with the structural differences (again the cl*toris is far more sensitive than the glans and direct stimulation of it for more than short bursts while ar*used is more painful than pleasureable. The female foreskin facillitates indirect touch that is far more pleasurable....this does not follow exactly with males and stimulation of the glans directly, with or without foreskin). I would expect, working in a population with a large amount of men and women who's problems often intermix with medical botches, to have at least met one man who had some complaint about their circumcision at this point. But I haven't. again, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist....but it does bode that it's fairly rare with the way its practiced in the US ...and if you're going to convince someone that this may rob them of s*xual experiences unknown, this ain't going to work. They will be able to point to every man in their recent family lineage and male friends who are circumcised that are fine and will be unable to find 1 male who's got a serious problem. I can't think of 1, and I talk in graphic detail about people's more embarrassing or painful experiences around s*exuality all the time. It will feel like a fictive problem or a remote one tied to unsterile or more extreme methods to circumcision. I'm not saying that this is true...but they won't have easily available proof that they're basically a little s*xual crippled. And to infer such would likely be a little offensive to them. Again, I strongly agree with how Calm mentioned approaching slower cultural shifts to reduce the common practice. *BTW, my problem with the article you gave me, wasn't that it wasn't researched, but that it led out with bias...that was the similarity I saw. All research is at least somewhat biased, I expect that. But leading out to prove/bolster an argument is problematic to me when trying to prove the inherent harm of said practice. With luv, BD
  4. BlueDreams


    I have always been ambivalent. I think part of it was that I would have liked to have had my ears pierced earlier than I did but it wasn't an option with my mom (much of her family's generation doesn't do ear piercings). She'd start talking about how I'd regret it or get an infection or get tired of wearing them. She was wrong on all counts. As it is, I'll probably wait until my kids want it and let them decide once I know they can clean them properly. I'm generally okay with cultural practices that may include short term pain as long as the effect/chance for long term harm is very small. With luv, BD
  5. BlueDreams


    I read the article you quoted and I have similar concerns to it as I do the netflix video. It's proving a point and is weighing resources on such topics in a way to form and maintain an argument. I also noted that there are few to no actual numbers when describing the complications in an international context about circumcision. Looking things up, this could be in part due to a lack of information/research on this area....but the article doesn't mention this, using whatever they do have to compare a bleak picture of male circumcision v underplaying the female circumcision...in my opinion. Some of their descriptions tied to female s*xuality irks me in how it is portrayed to downplay female circumcision. Or describing certain elective plastic surgery procedures such as labioplasty in a way that underplays the controversy around said procedures or their fairly unstudied consequences. I'm not saying this would be their intent, but again, the level of long-term effect, percentage-wise, for male circumcision v. female is likely very different due to the prevalence in societies where there are more sterile environments/procedures and better cleaning practices. In other words the percentage of boys/men having severe complications or lifetime effect would likely be smaller than girls/women. This is a problematic comparison. Research on the foreskin sensitivity seems to be very mixed on this area. My guess is some of the mixed results are tied to 1.) bias of researchers one way or another 2.) the subjective nature of sensitivity and what is considered s*xually arousing 3.) a tendency toward small scale studies. Also sensitivity doesn't necessarily translate to increased s*xual pleasure. Without going into detail, I asked my husband what he thought was more tied to s*xual pleasure and he laughed at the notion that it would be the foreskin. I assumed as much considering my work and just how little the foreskin comes up. But I'm also not a dude :P. I wouldn't usually give anecdotal evidence as the sole proof....but finding actual research consensus as opposed to singular (and often bias-laden) studies not pointing in conflicting or statistically marginal directions was really really hard. I found a couple of interesting dry reads. Such as this or this. But it's generally understudied. The other problem with this is that with most people that you will be discussing it with, it isn't a dramatically large amount of tissue removed and the risks are small or with minimal consequence according to this WHO report . The 15 sq inches only applies to adult/post-adolescent males. In the US, jewish populations, and other populations the vast majority of circumcisions happen to young babies. Plus much of this research assumes direct parallels between male and female genital function/effect. You could try to directly compare the two....my problem was paralleling them as having similar consequence and concern. Even type 1's have been shown in studies to increase significant long-term risks. But the comparisons can also lead to unwanted conclusions when looking at varying areas of research. For example, in societies where male circumcisions is normal, most can see it has little direct effect, and they like the practice for whatever reason using what will be seen as extreme examples, may not be as effective as one would hope. Having it compared to foot binding or FGM's (with no/little distinctions....which was happening on this thread) can be off-putting and viewed as overdramatic.....especially when they see no long-lasting problems from the procedure and they wanted it for their child. And the majority of them will fall into that category in nations where trained professionals with sterile tools are used. One can talk about shards of glass and barbers doing a sketchy procedure...and what that will say to those in favor of male circumcision is "thank heavens we don't live there...we should encourage clean and safe medical procedures to reduce/remove these adverse effects. Comparing minor FGM procedures can also change the double standard in the opposite direction...which has already happened to some extent as the documentary mentions somewhat. Since male circumcisions are fine and dandy maybe there are forms of female circumcisions that are fine and it's more about procedure or extreme measures that causes the problems....plus only hearing extreme cases. And type 4's do have very minimal consequence that are usually short-lived (minor infections, inflammation, etc). Lastly in comparing it can still lead to pushback by using the same comparison where the current general method of circumcisions in developed nations has minimal consequence and some potential long-term benefits (that are marginal, sure....but still have research to back it up), the same cannot be said about female circumcision at even the type 1a level. There are no known benefits and there are consequences that are long term (even if at times only with slight increase of risk. I never said I don't an ethical concern....there is if you believe that any form of change to a child's body before consent is wrong. And at first glance that seems right...until you think of things like ear piercings of infants or other demarcations of culture that cause some pain or change to the body, isn't medically necessary, but is culturally proscribed/enforced. Are these inherently wrong?.... even if they cause minimal to now long term effects except in extreme cases? What makes them wrong? And if there are religious edicts tied to them, what suddenly makes them okay? These are more rhetorical, since depending on our current beliefs and practices our answers are likely to change. Which is the problem with leaning into the ethics side of it. What makes something ethically right will also depend on one's cultural and personal perspective. It is far less concrete that medical research and even there, the research still cannot escape personal, cultural, and national biases. Like you, I've been looking into the research, perspectives, etc. I don't expect this to convince you per se one way or another to anything. I just wanted to respond to what you'd given me. With luv, BD
  6. BlueDreams

    How was two hour church?

    I don't mind either way. I've enjoyed the 2 times I got to witness a baby blessing at a house. It was definitely a more intimate get-together. But I don't mind the community experience either, as long as they're cognizant of time and plan for it in the program. It's just a bit of running giggle between me and DH. With luv, BD
  7. BlueDreams

    How was two hour church?

    Same. When i was a teacher, i always preferred to take tge smaller room and class. It allowed for more individual participation and some great class discussions. Church was good. I think i was enjoying most being at church at 9 instead of 1 for the first time in several years. Our sunday school was also extremely full. We somehow crammed in there, but i do wonder if they’ll split the class to better accommodate. It may take a moment though. They just finished reorganizing the primary and our bishopric was replaced. Right now in our ward we’re in a cycle of baby blessings and convert confirmations. Those can take up some time. I think we ended close to on time though. with luv, BD
  8. BlueDreams


    That isn't what I've read while looking up information. The stats I found on WHO clump type, 1, 2, and 4 of FGM together for their stats. (Type 4 would be the version that you are describing, I think). Another group called human rights watch states that the most common versions of FGM are Types 1+2. This accounts for 85% of all FGMs. For those wondering, these are the definitions for all 4 types from the CDC: For the record, I'm not a fan of any form of Circumcision. I'm not planning to have any of our future sons circumcised. My husband, who is from Peru and a culture with no to little circumcision finds it stupid besides. But I do think that the parallels to FGM is a little too broad brushed here, that I've read in this thread. Even if you were to take the most direct anatomical parallels in procedure (ie. the removal of the foreskins in both cases), it would likely not have the exact same consequences. I appreciate your anectdotes from your community and the experiences there. Male teen circumcision is unheard/rare of here, so it does give an interesting view as to the potential effects of the procedure. But if a female was to have the exact same procedure to remove foreskin, the results would likely be more extreme, since the amount of nerve endings on the tip of a cl*toris is about double the number than on the glans of a P*nis. Which means there would likely be more sensitivity, irritations, and s*xual dysfunctions. But that's likely not what's happening entirely, since the majority of FGM cases entail a larger variety of vulval tissue than is occurring to most men. To be blunt, type 1 would be similar to clipping or removing the glans of the P*enis, not just the foreskin. And type 2, doesn't have a good direct equivalent, but the labia minora's removal would likely increase problems with sexual/reproductive/menstrual functioning, rates of infections, etc (as mentioned by the WHO previously cited). One can believe the process is problematic or even barbaric....but I think it does a severe disservice to the very serious problems surrounding FGM when insisting that it is a direct parallel. The severity of surgery and the long-term effects are just not on the same level. As I mentioned I'm not a fan of circumcision. All of my mother's son's (6 of them) were circumcised. I didn't enjoy the seeming discomfort and work it took to care for the wound and it seemed unnecessary. The potential benefits are at best minimal and have some problems at times with methodology in the research. It didn't make sense to me. That said I don't think my brothers are seriously harmed either. Obviously, it's all that they know, but the effect on their sexual development just isn't there and none of them or my friend's children have experienced immediate or long term harm. I haven't had a man come in with concerns about circumcision and sexual functioning and it doesn't impede any of my clients from having a healthy and mutually happy sexual relationship. My husband likewise has no adverse effect for a lack of circumcision as well. Pogi, in the case of long-term effect, I think you're fine not to worry/feel guilty as much. Though I think the doctor definitely overstepped and should have given you guys more space to feel confident in your decision. I've been slowly watching the documentary. And though I've enjoyed it, I've also noticed a heavy bias in presentation that makes me skeptical about what's being said. With luv, BD
  9. That could be it. I don't remember the details at this point, but I think it was a little more warning oriented and felt a lot like "remembering Lot's wife" talk from a while back. Everything else was either super Christmas (christmas solos and hymns) or Christ related. With luv, BD
  10. I would have put "other," if that had been an option. Apparently the ward i attended, their christmas program of singing and such was the week before, because a missionary was coming home. She talked and kept her experiences directly to Christ and what He does for us in our lives. It was a wonderful talk really. There were 2 solo singers with christmas songs and christmas congregation hymns. But the last speaker, a high councilman, oddly used a scripture from Christ about (remembering lot's wife) to then talk about lot's wife and not looking back and such. It wasn't a bad talk, but it felt out of place from the rest of them meeting. It wasn't exactly focus on Christ but it also had no mention of JS....Thus other.
  11. I guess I'm thinking from the other end of being able to talk and counsel with bishops about their members from the stand point of a therapist. I talked to my previous bishop extensively about resources in the area and concerns that may come to his office, other bishops want tools and means to assess sexual concerns that come into their office (mind you, my specialty is sex therapy...I'm sure there are other concerns that if my expertise was different they'd want info on that too), and every once and a while a bishop needs a little coaching as to how to best approach a concern with a specific member(s) that they're not getting. I've luckily only had a rare case where communications had really broken down between members and leaders where I've really really needed to intervene. I'm also thinking of my own family growing up and the bishops they ended up talking to....all good men and all in more poop than they initially realized. But from what I've seen, we could do a little more to help them be better liaisons to community/professional sources and their congregants who may come to them first for help. With luv, BD
  12. Like calm said. I would add that Bishops can be important liaisons/support between therapy access and individuals in need of it.....BUT not as a good replacement or secondary source for treating concerns of this magnitude entirely. I also feel that bishops could be more effective if the had solid training and and an understanding of when problems or concerns may need more qualified help in a more systematic fashion. Bishop's capacity to recognize when they're about to step into problems well past their knowledge-base or calling can really range. With luv, BD
  13. I find this line really important and it's a pet peeve of mine when managing childhood mental health concerns. Often times there is more need for family treatment and intervention that isn't getting met for one reason or another. So even with intensive in patient treatments for youth, one may get the child stable, only to have the work unravel once they're in the environment that cause them to emotionally spiral in the first place. Without proper treatment of the systems the child is involved with, the likelihood of returning symptoms remains fairly high. With luv, BD
  14. Psyciatrists especially have a notoriously long waiting time. Though I know that with some of the people I see who needed medical specialists the time wait can also be long. I understand why it's so long as there's few people who specialized in some of the needed fields of treatment they were seeking and may be the only ones in a large area. Even for me, I will hit a couple points during the year where I have to start holding off for clients. If I take more than the amount I know I'm comfortable working with, I know my effectiveness as a therapist will begin to slip as well. Still, I understand the frustration with wait times. I watch the people who I know need help have to cope with their suffering and wait until they can get in to their allotted treatments. And I hate having to make others wait on my end as well. With luv, BD
  15. And there still are. Its a comfort to know that I can name a bishop and a stake president presiding over a student YSA stake/ward who equally fit the bill of the bishop you mentioned. And I work with many bishops in my job who are paying for therapy for their members through the church funds, who want to know what's occurring with their clients and are wanting to just do the best by them. I know there's things we can do to make things better. There always is. But I find hope in the good people - therapists, leaders, family members, friends - who are making a difference in the lives of those whose heart and minds are struggling. With luv, BD