Hey, you ended your sentence with a period! Baby steps. Next, how about a capital letter at the beginning? Later, we can try some punctuation in the middle (a comma, semicolon, or em dash).
can we use different words for different types of ritual modifications, then? Like clitoridectomy, or infibulation, both of which are heinous. There seem to be other things done that seem less heinous. (Although lying to a seven year old, then holding her down while she is cut seems pretty heinous even if it’s a cut that will completely heal with no permanent physical damage.)
Fibroblasts are (according to a quick internet search) a kind of stem cell. One that even adults have, although of course newborns have more and more active ones, being newborn and all. But the “Financial imperative” is bull hockey. Parents don’t get paid for foreskins. Neither does the person who cuts it off. And it sounds like the makers of that product have succeeded in creating a stable cell line to produce their cream, although i doesn’t look really hard into that detail. Also, that’s really a fringe product. I don’t see it catching on if only because of the “ick” factor.
But even for those who us who do say we disagree with it we just don’t feel like talking about it in that particular thread, no, that’s not enough. Because male feelings.
obligatory blank text
AND OUR PENISES DON’T FORGET OUR PENISES THEY ARE IMPORTANT
Keep bitching endlessly about men if you want. It’s annoying as fuck, but maybe that’s your intent.
That’s fine: I have no problem with using greater precision in our terminology.
I would say however that the other things may be less heinous, but they are still heinous. Cutting off healthy tissue from young children’s genitals is barbaric, regardless of the amount or location of the tissue, and regardless of their gender.
well played, puzzlegal. i may disagree with ramira about various things, but i think it’s completely stupid and assholish to gratuitously needle her about slight divergences in orthography when her posts are in general perfectly comprehensible (and especially given that she’s a non-native english speaker)
Well, speaking as a lifelong feminist, what I care about is the direct harm to the children in question from removing the tissue, not the uses to which the discarded tissue is put. If a culture has decided for non-medical reasons to, say, shave children’s heads or cut off their foreskins or their labia or whatever, I don’t give a rat’s ass what they do with the by-products (as long as their use is not significantly incentivizing a harmful practice).
What I want is for societies not to inflict medically unnecessary serious harms upon children in the first place. Which I think all of us are in fundamental agreement upon; now we just have to decide what harms count as “serious”.
Thanks. I think we are in agreement on almost everything. 
Hey, a thread about Female Genital Mutilation has morphed into being all about penises. What a surprise! :rolleyes:
I’m actually sympathetic to the anti-circumcision cause. But the fact that I have to sift through so much bullshit every time there is a FGM thread is exasperating.
Really, EVERY FUCKING TIME.
Your shitty thread got closed so you have to shit all over this one?
Assholes.
Bite me.
Bout what I’d expect. :rolleyes:
You come off like whiny little shits who can’t stand to have female anything discussed without the “but, but, but what about the males” bullshit.
EVERY. TIME.
Blow it out your ass, fuckwad.
Even your shitty insults are about your dick. Wow.
It was an invitation, not an insult. 
I want to start a new thread about this issue – FGM, since this one’s been tainted all to hell, but I’m afraid that the same thing will happen. Maybe ask the mods first?
Your invitation is off topic. A request for Modesty Blaise to give you a dental penectomy belongs in a new thread in MPSIMS, or perhaps Marketplace.
In the spirit of the holidays, I wish everyone a happy vulva.
E.T.A. Good luck, Guin.
Anyone who does this or allows this should have their throat cut slowly with s full, rusty knife.
LOL, dental penectomy. Not quite what I had in mind, but clever! 
Why do I suspect the same hysterical ninnies bitching and moaning about “the MEN” are also the ones who are the first to insist that female birth control be attached to any consideration of Viagra? Even though Viagra and birth control are far more different than are cutting the genitals of small girls vs. cutting the genitals of small boys. :dubious:
I don’t know. Maybe because you are a sexist prick?
Personally, I think birth control is critical to health, and Viagra is just a nice thing to enhance life. I’d subsidize the first as a basic welfare benefit, and consider the second to be a luxury good that people can buy on there own if they want. But i understand that the rules are made by people who care a lot more about men’s erections than about unwanted babies.
I chipped in on the other thread that was closed (the one about male genital mutilation/circumcision) and quite rightly the subject of FGM was brought up there as well. I simply don’t think that either can be considered in isolation.
Is the damage caused by the most common forms of FGM greater than that of MGM? yes. Of course. I don’t think that anyone on any side is claiming otherwise. If there is a priority order in which to tackle the problems then of course deal with the most harmful first, the one most easily and unequivocally harmful and damaging.
However, what you cannot do is pretend that the two subject are not intrinsically linked, that the discussion of one does not take you inexorably, ultimately, into a consideration of the other.
In both cases you are dealing with cultural and religious practices, inflicted on non-consenting children that manifestly change their bodies in irreversible ways.
If you are arguing against any and all forms and severity of FGM under any circumstances then you are implicitly arguing against MGM as well and denying that is a hypocrisy that needs to be addressed. If you suggest that milder forms of FGM may be allowable for cultural and religious reasons then you are implicitly drawing an equivalence to MGM and using it as an example of what is permissible.
Those clamoring for MGM never to be discussed in threads about FGM are not being realistic and are seeking to have that discussion in a vaccuum that it does not warrant. This is not a male v female conflict. It is about the principles of bodily autonomy of children and the barbaric practices of culture and religion that infringe on that. The mentality that inflicts this on boys and girls is precisely and exactly equivalent even though typically the outcomes are more severe for girls than boys.
I suspect that people won’t be happy with what I’ve written here but I really don’t care. I start from a point of condemning all practices of this nature and have plenty of anger available and can apportion it according to the amount of harm done.
Novelty Bobble, that should be framed! Wow. Great post.
Called it.