Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can legislate female genital mutilation without speaking to male genital mutilation, by passing a law that protects female genitalia. Since female genitalia is distinct and different from male genitalia, a law simply has to be clear when stating what it legislating. The 14th Amendment wouldn't have a problem with a law saying that removal of a clitoris is illegal. Because it applies equally. Any man who had a clitoris would enjoy the same protection as a woman.
They claim that it does after the fact as an excuse to keep it up. It's profitable and adds 2500, to 5000 to every birth of a boy. Our healthcare system is for profit after all. But it didn't start in America because of that.
We do this with a few procedures for profit. Wisdom teeth, sedation during colonoscopies, and other tests. It adds to profit. It's not as necessary as you think.
Fortunately insurance companies are starting to refuse to pay for routine circumcisions in US.
As fewer babies have them, it will be normalized to be uncircumcised like in Europe. So the "fitting in" reasoning is an old excuse from a previous time.
The US has male genital mutilation that no one seems to care about. Even some people get defensive over (it's cleaner etc).
Just goes to show you how entrenched into your own cultural practices, that you can't step outside your own context.
The difference is something that can be judged by the effect. I haven't met a circumcised man who didn't still think orgasms were wonderful, and it's not the purpose of a circumcision to make orgasms any less wonderful.
The purpose of female genital mutilation is to inhibit the woman's sexual availability and pleasure, and it does that. The purpose and effect are evil from the start, and such a difference does make a difference.
Well the procedures are entirely different because the organs are different. In essence though they are both genital mutilation, just accepting one is ok doesn't refute this. However claims of health benefits for male circumcision are marginal and equally obtained by good hygiene, and while there is little evidence of sexual dysfunction there is significant evidence of reduced sensation and enjoyment which may result in later sexual dysfunction that may be unattributed to other factors (psychological etc.).
So while the procedures are not the same, it's also intellectually dishonest to claim male circumcision is not mutilation regardless of perceived heath benefits. Your contention is just that the mutilation is acceptable because of perceived benefits.
So would be piercing a child's ears. It's every bit as intellectually dishonest to claim that they are the same thing.
And where is that "significant evidence of reduced sensation and enjoyment which may result in later sexual dysfunction that may be unattributed to other factors (psychological etc.)"
"My parents circumcised me as a child! My sex life has been ruined!"
Well there IS technically no reason to perform it. Scientifically there is no benefit that cannot be achieved in any other way. It's also of risk to the recipient, and does reduce sensitivity therefore by implication DOES reduce pleasure.
I really don't care what you think I think FGM is, I'm not obfuscating anything. My nitpick was the claim that male circumcision was not performed to stop sexual pleasure, that in the US is historically inaccurate, which isn't a not pick when the claim was formed as a question. Follow the thread, it might lead you to comprehension.
But to be 100% transparent for the dense. Here's my position
FGM IS ABUSE PERIOD!
MALE CIRCUMCISION IS MGM AND THEREFORE OF THE SAME CATEGORY AS FGM.
Is that clear? I'm not in any way supporting FGM I'm not confused about the three types (you do know there are three different types, type 3 being the most severe and least common) why it's performed nor by whom. However I do not accept that there is any intrinsic difference in legal principle between non-consenting mutilation of people. You cannot tattoo people without their consent, why is it legal to remove part of their genitals? Oh because there may be "some evidence" of health benefits not discovered in over 3500 years of practise that's just waiting around the corner?
Now since we apparently share the same opinion on FGM, what's the argument about? That you don't consider circumcision abuse? Which is what I'd like to understand, because there is no reason to remove a foreskin as a general practice medically, there is not, nor ever has been any objective nor compelling reason for the practice medically.
Your nitpick was to bring up a medical belief from over a century ago that has long-since been disproved (that circumcision reduces men's sexual drive), to argue about current medical beliefs regarding circumcision. And you did that to make the argument that FGM is akin to circumcision. It is not.
I concur that there isn't any "intrinsic difference in legal principle between non-consenting mutilation" of any person. I think there is a profound difference between circumcision and FGM. I think there is a profound difference between circumcision and castration. I can certainly understand that circumcision is something that men would be particularly opposed to, and that men would particularly speak to as a violation and an outrage. Circumcision affects men. And there are many women as well as men who do oppose circumcision. But it's not the same thing as FGM, and while I appreciate you oppose FGM, I think when you argue that it's the same as circumcision, you are not being accurate, and you are demeaning what happens to women. People who are opposed to an act should not then try to minimize the act. I realize that from your perspective, the mutilation of men by circumcision is a terrible violation, and that you don't think you are minimizing FGM, but the two things are different from one another, both in specifics and in scale.
The difference is something that can be judged by the effect. I haven't met a circumcised man who didn't still think orgasms were wonderful, and it's not the purpose of a circumcision to make orgasms any less wonderful.
The purpose of female genital mutilation is to inhibit the woman's sexual availability and pleasure, and it does that. The purpose and effect are evil from the start, and such a difference does make a difference.
Intention doesn't matter when you are performing unnecessary surgery on healthy babies and young children. The result is the same. The parts are cut off and someone gave consent to do this because they wanted to.
Your nitpick was to bring up a medical belief from over a century ago that has long-since been disproved (that circumcision reduces men's sexual drive), to argue about current medical beliefs regarding circumcision. And you did that to make the argument that FGM is akin to circumcision. It is not.
I concur that there isn't any "intrinsic difference in legal principle between non-consenting mutilation" of any person. I think there is a profound difference between circumcision and FGM. I think there is a profound difference between circumcision and castration. I can certainly understand that circumcision is something that men would be particularly opposed to, and that men would particularly speak to as a violation and an outrage. Circumcision affects men. And there are many women as well as men who do oppose circumcision. But it's not the same thing as FGM, and while I appreciate you oppose FGM, I think when you argue that it's the same as circumcision, you are not being accurate, and you are demeaning what happens to women. People who are opposed to an act should not then try to minimize the act. I realize that from your perspective, the mutilation of men by circumcision is a terrible violation, and that you don't think you are minimizing FGM, but the two things are different from one another, both in specifics and in scale.
So would be piercing a child's ears. It's every bit as intellectually dishonest to claim that they are the same thing.
And where is that "significant evidence of reduced sensation and enjoyment which may result in later sexual dysfunction that may be unattributed to other factors (psychological etc.)"
"My parents circumcised me as a child! My sex life has been ruined!"
Which men said that? Why are there still Jews?
If you want to know how strongly some men feel about it watch the play Sex & Circumcision An American Love Story by Eric Clopper on Youtube. It is now set as age restricted for some reason, maybe because it is too honest.
There are different levels of FGM that can happen. This can include removable of the clitoris - the very thing that gives women sexual pleasure, the removal of any outer labia including scraping off the vaginal lips, and the sewing shut of the vaginal opening, whilst leaving a very small hole for menstrual blood.
Often, the girls are sewn too tightly and deadly infections can happen when vaginal discharge and menstrual blood is unable to escape.
Most men that are circumcised, not all, but most, go on to have healthy sex lives. Women that have been mutilated, do not.
So it is not comparable over all due to the extreme nature of female genital mutilation.
As far as I’m concerned, when you’re talking about female genital mutilation, male circumcision should not even be part of the conversation. Now, listen very carefully before you shout "gender equality".
If we compare the two, we lose the horror of what female genital mutilation really is. That argument is dangerous , because to compare the two is to diminish and disregard the real harm that is currently being done to millions of little girls around the world.
This said, Thousand of men are speaking out against the sexual mutilation that they didn’t consent to, which I certainly DO respect their opinion and their voice certainly deserve to be HEARD. However, please understand male circumcision is ANOTHER topic. When we address the issue of FGM, we do not need to include male circumcision, period.
Disagreements about male circumcision is one thing. I can respect someone choosing differently or /and I can certainly respect people who say there are zero medical benefits. But this is NOT the point here. The point is, If the man thinks his bride must be mutilated, then HE is not marriageable. HE is a monster! Get your daughters away!
We simply must keep yelling this from the rooftops. We who live in the amazing comfort of America must speak up for those who are being hurt elsewhere in the world (and now even here at home, in America) rather than closing our eyes. There are many liberals, conservatives, feminists, and non feminists, males, and females who are against FGM because it is a human rights violation.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 11-28-2018 at 11:38 AM..
They claim that it does after the fact as an excuse to keep it up. It's profitable and adds 2500, to 5000 to every birth of a boy. Our healthcare system is for profit after all. But it didn't start in America because of that.
We do this with a few procedures for profit. Wisdom teeth, sedation during colonoscopies, and other tests. It adds to profit. It's not as necessary as you think.
The charge for neonatal circumcision is more like $250 to $500. Who is paying $2500 to $5000 for it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
