Genital mutilation of young girls. But it's a religious thing!

[Norse]

@Czarcasm

I am strongly rethinking my position about whether female-only threads should be allowed.

Wouldn’t that preclude you from replying to this thread as well?

Double standards.

[Czarcasm]

With only two prosecutions in 18 years(and one of those from other charges, which means only one real prosecution) I don’t think underreporting is the main problem here.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Czarcasm

With only two prosecutions in 18 years(and one of those from other charges, which means only one real prosecution) I don’t think underreporting is the main problem here.

Are you saying it’s not being prosecuted? Why would that be?

[x-ray_vision]

@Czarcasm

When males are sliced and mutilated to make sure that they get no pleasure from sex then they will be the same topic

When someone is doing something because they believe it is prescribed by their religion, they are often doing it solely because they believe that’s what their supposed to do because their god or prophet commands it. IME, that seems to be the case with male circumcision among Jews and Muslims. I see no reason to believe it’s not the same for many Muslims that are having Type 1a FGM performed on their daughters.

Some Muslims belief it may enhance sexual pleasure:

Many schools of thought which order the “slight trimming” of the hood of the clitoris do so in means of enhancing sexual pleasure.

http://www.islamicity.org/forum/printer_friendly_posts.asp?TID=8791

And even that that was Muhammad’s intent:

When the Prophet said that it was more desirable for the husband, what he obviously meant was that he would be pleased that his wife too had attained orgasm at about the same time as him – perhaps even had multiple orgasms – and that he would not need to exert himself further to ensure she is fully satisfied. The idea here is that it is only with the removal of the clitoral prepuce that real sexual satisfaction could be realized. It is contended that the procedure enhances sexual feeling in women during the sex act since a circumcised clitoris is much more likely to be stimulated as a result of direct oral, penile or tactile contact than the uncircumcised organ whose prepuce serves as an obstacle to direct stimulation. This necessarily leads to a satisfactory sex life among women, thus ensuring their chastity.

http://asiffhussein.com/2015/04/02/female-circumcision-the-hidden-truth/

It does help some women.

This vaginal rejuvenation procedure aims to reduce the size of the clitoral hood to maintain symmetry. Hoodectomy may be done in tandem with labiaplasty, especially if there is a significant or complete reduction of the inner lips (labia minora). The reduction or removal of the clitoral hood may increase the stimulation of the clitoris and intensify sexual pleasure.

http://www.yourplasticsurgeryguide.com/other-procedures/labiaplasty-procedures.htm

Before someone accuses me of condoning the practice, I will state that I definitely do not. What I’m doing is making the case that it’s not necessarily done by some Muslims to take away pleasure.

Since Type 1a FGM is on par with male circumcision, talking about it to a degree is not a hijack.

[Czarcasm]

@Spice_Weasel

Are you saying it’s not being prosecuted? Why would that be?

I don’t know, but with hundreds of thousands of cases happening I find it extremely hard to believe there were only TWO prosecutable cases.

[Spice_Weasel]

Wow. I had no idea it was so prevalent.

[SlackerInc]

@iiandyiiii

“Hey, strangers – you’re mutilated and should be pitied! Aren’t I a great guy for telling you that you’re mutilated and I pity you despite knowing zilch about your lives?”

You’re right: it was a low blow (no pun intended). I apologize.

@Spice_Weasel

Are you saying it’s not being prosecuted? Why would that be?

Presumably a fear of being called “Islamophobic” (or maybe even a fear of being targeted for violence by Islamists), and/or a misguided idea of what freedom of religion does and does not entail.

[iiandyiiii]

@SlackerInc

You’re right: it was a low blow (no pun intended). I apologize.

Accepted; big of you to recognize this and apologize.

[Guinastasia]

@Spice_Weasel

Here you fucking go. I made folks wishing fervently to discuss this topic their very own thread.

Thanks, Spice Weasel.

[Chessic_Sense]

@Guinastasia

Can we for once, not turn a thread about FGM into a thread about male circumcision? Just for once? Whatever your beliefs about it, the issues surrouding it are different. Okay?

Please.

No, you can’t. It’ll never happen, and I’ll tell you why. FGM isn’t controversial. We’re all on one side of it. It’s uninteresting to talk about on the Internet. “Hey, FGM is bad.” “Yep.” End of thread.

Male circumcision is provocative. It gets the people goin’. Ergo, every thread deviates.

It’s like a Pirates World Series victory…just never going to happen.

[puzzlegal]

@Richard_Pearse

I suspect if it was always just the hood, there would be less outrage about it, but yes, in principle there does seem to be a double standard.

Yup

@Norse

It’s rather interesting to observe that on a forum dedicated to “figthing ignorance”, the defenders of male circumcision use the same arguments that are used by female victim of FGM to defend the practice, apparently without realizing it.

It’s also interesting to note that according to the same people, surgical removal of the male prepuce during infancy is quite alright, while surgical removal of the female prepuce during infancy is something that should be condemned. On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance.

FGM type 1a is defined by the WHO as surgical removal of the clitoral hood. Which, as I’ve mentioned before, is - anatomically speaking - exactly the same as the practice known as male circumcision. There is, of course, no comparison of FGM type 1b (surgical removal of the glans clitoris), or type 2 (removal of the labia minora), or type 3 (infibulation) to so-called male circumcision, but if you’re offended by type 1a and accept the same procedure on male infants, you’re fooling yourself.

It’s the same fucking thing. You’re cutting the healthy genitals of children who aren’t able to give informed consent. And you’re defending your practice by the same arguments that defenders of FGM are using to defend their practice.

Nope.

I’ve read lots of articles about the horrors of female circumcision. Every one of them included stories about particular women. Not one of those exemplar women had had the clitoral hood trimmed. Maybe that gets done, but that’s not the surgery that provokes outrage.

Most female “circumcisions” involve cutting off a large part of the clitoris. Many also involve removing a chunk of the labia and sewing everything up so there’s barely room for urine to drip out.

When we start seeing little boys who have the whole external penis removed, along with all the lose skin of the ballsack, I will be plenty outraged. Whatever you think of trimming a bit of foreskin (male or female) you should be outraged by the typical female genital mutilation.

Fun fact: I once had a (male) kitten circumcised. He had inflammation and swelling, and couldn’t pee. The circumcision saved his life. The parts of the world where male circumcision arose are dusty places, where intact men sometimes develop the same problem. The US Army did a lot of emergency, medically necessary, circumcisions during the Iraq war. If you don’t have modern medicine, it’s a lot safer to circumcise infants and boys than to do it to adult men, especially adult men who have already developed dangerous inflammation. That’s almost certainly the historical reason the custom of male circumcision arose.

Female cutting, in contrast, is all about controlling female sexuality. It increases the risk of infection and death. Yeah, spare me stories of the hypothetical clitoral hood cut. I don’t actually care if someone is doing that to her girl child. I do care if they are cutting off her clit.

Capiche?

[SlackerInc]

I care about all of it. The existence of (yes) worse things does not make bad things okay.

[Guinastasia]

@SlackerInc

I care about all of it. The existence of (yes) worse things does not make bad things okay.

That’s fine, but quit hijacking threads about FGM. While the procedures may both be wrong, the issues surrounding it are completely different. Got it? (If you must, start a new thread)

It has nothing to do with not “caring about all of it”. It has to do with not being a thread-shitting douchebag.

[AK84]

Puzzlegal is there a typical FMG?

[Norse]

@puzzlegal

Most female “circumcisions” involve cutting off a large part of the clitoris.

(Bolding mine)
Cite?

@puzzlegal

Many also involve removing a chunk of the labia and sewing everything up so there’s barely room for urine to drip out.

The WHO seems to disagree with you, unless if by “many” you mean approximately one tenth of the victims. Cite.

@puzzlegal

The parts of the world where male circumcision arose are dusty places, where intact men sometimes develop the same problem.

Cite?

@puzzlegal

The US Army did a lot of emergency, medically necessary, circumcisions during the Iraq war.

(bolding mine)
Given the prevalence of male circumcision among American and Muslim men, I find this hard to believe.

Cite?

@puzzlegal

If you don’t have modern medicine, it’s a lot safer to circumcise infants and boys than to do it to adult men, especially adult men who have already developed dangerous inflammation.

Cite?

@puzzlegal

That’s almost certainly the historical reason the custom of male circumcision arose.

Cite?

@puzzlegal

Female cutting, in contrast, is all about controlling female sexuality.

Cite?

EDIT: Don’t bother. I have one:

Reasons for Supporting FGM Vary

Reasons for supporting FGM include the beliefs that it is a “good tradition”, a religious requirement(s), or a necessary rite of passage to womanhood; that it ensures cleanliness or better marriage prospects, prevents promiscuity and excessive clitoral growth, preserves virginity, enhances male sexuality, and facilitates childbirth by widening the birth canal.

Until the 1950s, FGM was performed in England and the United States as a common “treatment” for lesbianism, masturbation, hysteria, epilepsy, and other so-called “female deviances”.41
Religious affiliation can affect approval levels: A study in Kenya and Sierra Leone revealed that most Protestants opposed FGM while a majority of Catholics and Muslims supported its continuation.42
There is a direct correlation between a woman’s attitude towards FGM and her place of residence, educational background, and work status. DHS data indicate that urban women are less likely than their rural counterparts to support FGM. Employed women are also less likely to support it. Women with little or no education are more likely to support the practice than those with a secondary or higher education.44 Data from the 1989 Sudanese survey (of women 15- to 49-years-old) show that 80 percent of women with no education or only primary education support FGM, compared to only 55 percent of those with senior secondary or higher schooling.45 A woman’s age does not seem to influence support.
Most women who have had the FGM procedure are strongly in favor of FGM for their daughters.46 In Egypt, 50 percent of the women surveyed reported that they had at least one daughter who had gone through the procedure, while 38 percent intended to do so in the future. In addition, most of these women want their daughters to undergo the same type of procedure they had.49
Most women who favor ending the practice also feel they do not have enough information to convince men of the harmful effects of FGM.50 Men help continue the practice by refusing to marry women who have not had FGM or by allowing or paying for their daughters’ procedures. DHS data indicate that, in general, women believe that their husbands’ attitudes toward FGM are similar to their own.51 However, recent studies in Eritrea and Sudan found that men may actually be less supportive and more indifferent than women toward this practice.52

Reasons for Supporting FGM in Egypt, Mali, Central African Republic, and Eritrea

Today, the most common reason evoked for supporting FGM is the belief that the practice is a “good tradition”.47 Other reasons include religious requirement(s); rite of passage to womanhood; cleanliness; prevention of promiscuity among girls; preservation of virginity; better marriage prospects; enhancement of male sexuality; prevention of excessive clitoral growth; and facilitation of childbirth by widening the birth canal.48

http://www.path.org/files/FGM-The-Facts.htm

@puzzlegal

It increases the risk of infection and death.

Certainly, if it’s done under non-sterile conditions with primitive tools and materials. However, comparing the risk of infection after massive female genital cutting in e.g. rural Somalia with a glass shard and using thorns to sew up the vagina afterwards, with male genital cutting done in a Western hospital under sterile conditions and with the access to modern antibiotics and then ascribing the difference to the sex of the child who is mutilated is pretty stupid.

[x-ray_vision]

@puzzlegal

Yeah, spare me stories of the hypothetical clitoral hood cut. I don’t actually care if someone is doing that to her girl child. I do care if they are cutting off her clit.

Capiche?

The “hypothetical” clitoral hood cut is the type of cut the OP started over. Capiche?

[JRDelirious]

@Guinastasia

That’s fine, but quit hijacking threads about FGM. While the procedures may both be wrong, the issues surrounding it are completely different. Got it? (If you must, start a new thread)

It has nothing to do with not “caring about all of it”. It has to do with not being a thread-shitting douchebag.

You realize you are asking them to Let Someone Be Wrong On The Internet. They will make it all about their cause no matter what.

[x-ray_vision]

@JRDelirious

You realize you are asking them to Let Someone Be Wrong On The Internet. They will make it all about their cause no matter what.

Since this thread started over cases of FGM type 1a, talking about male circumcision is relevant for multiple reasons. The OP was originally outraged, but when a mod made him aware that it can be comparable to other forms of circumcision that are legal, he seems to admit his outrage may have been premature and needed some education he may get in this thread, and that can’t happen without comparisons being made. Also, since the story linked to in the OP is regarding an arrest for what some see as being an analogous procedure routinely and legally performed on male babies, talking about it isn’t a hijack.

[Fuji]

1. I think FGM, to any degree, is abhorrent. Obviously, the more severe and complete it is, the more monstrous the practice becomes.

2. I also think male circumcision is an abhorrent practice, but that FGM, both for reasons of human biology as well as the patriarchal societies in which it predominates, is a much more pressing issue in 2017.

3. That said, I agree with the jist of the complaints expressed below:

@Guinastasia

Can we for once, not turn a thread about FGM into a thread about male circumcision? Just for once? Whatever your beliefs about it, the issues surrouding it are different. Okay?

Please.

@Spice_Weasel

Go question it somewhere else. You’re threadshitting.

@Czarcasm

That sounds important enough to have its own thread!
Why don’t you go start one?

@MandaJo

A smart lawyer would make sure the woman in the OP faced a jury with at least 2 male jurors, preferably one cut and one uncut. She’d never be convicted because the jury room would devolve into those two talked about their own dicks, endlessly, until the other jurors begged to be released.

4. Unfortunately, the thread which Spice Weasel created was situated in GD. That thread is now (as it inevitably would be) locked.

5. With that in mind, I have created a new thread where male circumcision can be freely discussed, and this thread can remain focused on FGM. Everybody wins!

[Guinastasia]

All of you are assholes.