Londoners sign petition supporting Female Genital Mutilation
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Original reasons. What are the reasons now? And is the end result effectively the same in both genders?
Already did, years ago.
They wanted it to look more perfect like the gods. It just so happened that it allowed for easier erection and increased fertility. Which of course predates the Jewish male covenant.
And of course that means sfa today, where a male circumcision isn't meant to ruin a males sex life, while female circumcision is.
Nope. Which of course is a great big giant difference between the two.
Medical professionals are increasingly stating there is no reason (that's why medical care doesn't cover it). The most common reason now, is to look like dad. Much the same reason that women who've been circumcised want their daughters done too.
Its prevelance in the US was very largely due to the push to end masturbation, and removing the largest bundle of nerves was considered a huge benefit to that end.
I think we're getting away from the point of the thread here, which is how horrible Muslims are and how much we hate them. Can we get back to that?
Despite the sad outcome, awesome.
Neat, and today? Oh ya, you already answered that. It's come along way.
While FGM hasn't.
HUGE difference. Huge, massive, monumental even.
I don't see what is wrong with just doing away with subjecting infants and children to antiquated nutty rituals. Apparently there's baby boys in the US that have died of herpes because dude doing the circumcision insisted on sucking the blood from the wound. Really?
There's some kinds of FGM that are analogous to circumcision. Obviously amputating the clitoris or major modifications should be completely off the table. I question the original survey too--it sounds like an exercise in confirmation bias to me.
There's some kinds of FGM that are analogous to circumcision. Obviously amputating the clitoris or major modifications should be completely off the table. I question the original survey too--it sounds like an exercise in confirmation bias to me.
The fact that it's viewed as mutilation rather than circumcision (even though some are just circs, not what people picture when they hear mutilation), says a lot. The difference can be monumental. The difference can be insignificant. But the root of the social push for it, is astoundingly similar.
WHO | Female genital mutilation
A lot of times it's a method of control and oppression.
Now I've searched, I can't find anything linked to male circumcision that even comes remotely close to this. In fact, on the WHO site when I searched for Male Circumcision, this is what I found:
WHO | WHO Prequalification of Male Circumcision Devices
WHO | Traditional male circumcision among young people
Now I can absolutely respect the point of view that any surgical alteration is mutilation. But the practice is not the same.
Because most are mutilation, meant to keep the girl pure!
The difference can be monumental.
Roots shmoots. The outcome, today, in the west is, male circumcision, not to ruin a males member. FGM, meant to ruin a females genitalia.
See SLMs post.
+500
I agree, it's not about oppression anymore, but it is about control. For most people, it comes down to wanting the son to look like dad. The medical community has long ago abandoned the notion that it's medically necessary. Surgically altering your baby to look more like you, IS a control issue.
The fact that educated men in North America are still not able to shake the need to alter their sons, tells me that getting uneducated people a world away to shake the need to alter their children, will be impossible. All we can do is pass laws protecting children from surgical alteration.
Nope.
Male circumcision is a net health benefit, it prevents the acquisition and spread of infection, and lowers the chance of spreading AIDS.
Benefits of male circumcision 'outweigh the risks' - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent
Now, google "benefits of female circumcision".
Good luck.
As for "......your rants against 'multiculturalism' actually just sound like ranting against 'different culturalism'", absolutely correct, when the different culture is one of barbarism and abuse. I happen to think western culture is superior. You will get no apologies from me for that.
BTW, I know one guy that had to be circumsized as an adult..................never heard of a woman ordered by her doctor to have her ****** sewn up, and her clitoris removed.
As with any other health issue, the decision to have a male child circumsized belongs with the parents.
Female circumcision is NEVER a health issue.
'Western' culture is superior? How so?
Did 'Western' culture not attempt genocide a few times, including in recent Canadian history?
If you look at history, at one point in history Islamic civilization was actually more advanced than ours and even contributed significantly to the preservation of pre-dark-ages european culture and to the Renaissance.
At the end of the day, I'd rather say that I follow my beliefs and not some abstract notion of 'Western' culture that can be defined in so many different ways as to be just as meaningles as 'Eastern' culture.
It is not simply that 19 people signed, it is that 19 out of 20 people approached signed....only one refused.
No other culture in history has made so many both rich and free...............
In the twelveth century, Islam was more advanced than the west..............but the very nature of Islam (submission) is the antithesis of of the liberty, the freedom of thought that is essential to development and the evolution of society. Therefore Islam has simply slid backwards for the last 800 years, while the west moved forward.
Not to mention it is illegal in Canada and the US.
Karrie, there is a reason why circumcision sounds benign and female genital mutilation sounds barbaric and the latter outlawed in Canada and the US.
I am. I dont care if they are old enough and chose to go through it, thats fine. But modifying an infants body - I dont like it. It was done to me and I dont hold a grudge per se but it does annoy me that it was done before I got a say in it. They operated on me when I was a baby and thats fine as it was that or die. There was no medical reason for the circumcision.
It is a bit disturbing that some things are excused and ignored as being part of the 'culture' of one group or another. That argument isnt good enough for some things - like this.
Most male circumcisions are avoidable and necessitated in later years due to scar tissue from people forcing the foreskin back when they are babies.
The articles about it being a disease benefit are based on flawed studies of a tiny sample of men.
But all of that is beside the point.
The fact of the matter is, people should not be cosmetically altered without their consent, least of all their genitalia.
I'm fully aware.
If a young woman is put through surgical labial trimming, it is mutilation. If a baby boy is strapped to a board and has his foreskin crushed off without anaesthetic, it is circumcision. If an African woman fears that her daughter will never get a husband in their community if she doesn't have it done, she's horrible. If a father worries that women will turn his son down unless he's done, it's valid.
One is right and legal. One is not. One is justified. One is not.