IOW, no cite supporting your claim about “[…] The parts of the world where male circumcision arose are dusty places, where intact men sometimes develop the same problem.” Particularly the part about the medical issues, which is the central issue of your claim.
IOW, no cite.
IOW, no cite.
IOW, no cite.
No cite, no facts, but plenty of hand-waving and unsubstantiated opinion. I thought this board was about fighting ignorance, not about shooting unsubstantiated crap.
You’re full of shit and just pulled those “facts” out of your ass.
We’ve been asked to keep male stuff out of this thread. I have no idea why you pulled this back from the male thread, but I’m not engaging with it here.
Okay, I’ve read this whole thread and the other one about male circumcision, and noted the quotes where the benefits/reasons for FGM claim to be religious/tradition/hygiene, but I still have a question. Possibly unanswerable or only rhetorical. But as a woman, I need to ask about the FGM type 1a: what is the point of removing the membrane over the clitoris? It all sounds like woo to me. Damaging, horrible, misogynistic woo. Some of the posts that seemed to point out that they weren’t removing the clitoris but only the membrane as if that was minor have me scratching my head. If it’s that minor, leave it the fuck alone!
That’s all well and good, but in this thread, we’re talking about females. All right? There’s already a thread on male circumcision. Just because we don’t want to talk about male circumcision in this thread does not mean anyone has approved of it – they just don’t want to discuss it IN THIS PARTICULAR THREAD. Can we not play the Oppression Olympics for once?
(Do you barge into threads about breast cancer and bring up prostate cancer? Or talk about the Trail of Tears in a Holocaust thread?)
You can’t fight FGM by getting all raged up, claiming it’s done purely to control female sexuality (it isn’t), that it’s only the men that propagate it (it isn’t), that it deprives women of being able to enjoy sex at all (for the majority of cut women it doesn’t), and that it’s comparable to male castration or cutting off the whole penis (for the majority of cut women it isn’t). Do that, and you’ll meet exactly the same reactions that we see in the discussion about male genital modification, and you’ll meet exactly the same type of arguments with no root in science. If you can’t see the similarity between those two discussions, you can’t fight FGM effectively.
But if all you want is some recreational outrage, carry on.
HOWEVER, my point is, this isn’t about male circumcision. You want to argue the merits of it? Fine. But do it elsewhere. Maybe THAT’S why people get so defensive – because you try and make it all about you. Stop doing that, and then maybe we can have a rational discussion. FGM is the topic here. You want don’t want to discuss that? Fuck the fuck off.
Of course it’s woo. Various arguments are put forward, some of them contradictory - “it’s more hygenic!” ( huh? how? ), “it helps dampen any potential over-active sex drive!”( what? who cares?), “it enhances sex” ( again, how? ) and so forth. But it is all just woo at the end of the day. Justification for something that has been practiced for thousands of years as tradition, cuz we’ve always done it that way.
How and when it started is lost to history. One plausible hypothesis is that FGM all started with the most severe version of infibulation to control virginity among the Egyptian and/or Sudanese nobility and less invasive forms popped up as the tradition migrated. It’s mildly interesting to me that the least invasive versions often seem to be practiced farthest from Egypt ( Indonesia for example, where sometimes it is just a token scratch or pinprick ). But I’m guessing the chicken came before the egg in this case - i.e. Type 1a was just a quicker/easier adaptation of some other more elaborate version of FGM and didn’t appear a priori to deal with some imagined issue. Justifications came afterwards.
It seems you need to use anti-FGM arguments against male infant circumcision. So you’re minimizing the issue in this thread and no doubt inflating concerns in the other, making the two roughly equivalent. Then you’ll berate people for not seeing the two as identical, and offend people of both genders. Which does fuck-all to combat anything but your boredom and our sanity.
And who here said that this is only propagated by men?
So, can we agree that type 3 fgm is worse than type 2, which is worse that 1b, which is worse than 1a?
Personally, I also think it’s worse to do any of these by lying to seven year olds than it would be to do the same thing to infants, and also worse than to do it to older children who understand what is going to happen and why they are being asked to submit to this. (Presumably, there are some cultural reasons which have some positive spin, and it’s not “because we hate you and want to hurt you”)
I made my kids get painful vaccinations that made them feel sick for a day or more, but once they were old enough to be given a reason, I told them, clearly and in age appropriate language, what would happen and why.
It’s a good question. I could agree with that statement under certain conditions, but I don’t feel obligated to agree in general. So many other cultures practice it in different ways, with varying degrees of physical alteration and psychological damage, having a zero-tolerance policy seems really sensible.
One reason I think that is the surprise attack feature in some people’s stories is really astonishing. The Detroit story is nothing in comparison.
You keep referencing that, but I really don’t see the relevance of something that is painful and unpleasant for a day (or a few days, or even a few weeks) compared to something that permanently alters your body.
Um, the whole point of immunization is to permanently alter your body. It’s a biochemical alteration, not a physical alteration. Or just bio? Anyway, it permanently alters the way your cells react to certain stimuli. That sort of thing matters. In the case of vaccines, the change to the body is beneficial. Unless you’re an anti-vaxxer, and think that in addition to immunity to polio you are also picking up autism or something. But it’s all about the cost benefit analysis of the permanent change tout are forcing on your child.
To a lesser extent, you do. And if you only feed your kids junk food, you alter their bodies in an unfortunate way, with much greater impact than circumcision.
Parents make lots of irrevocable choices for their children, and not just about their bodies. Which language(s) will they speak natively? What religion will they be exposed to when they are at their most malleable? What skills will they learn most proficiently? (All the best skiers, skaters, gymnasts, violinists, … Learn as children.) Will they be vaccinated? Will they be exposed to a wide variety of foods? Will they have access to adequate nutrition? What dietary habits will they acquire? Will they learn to fear dogs or to love them? Will they learn how to run a business? Will they learn to question their doctor? I imagine you’ve seen the enormous correlation between parental and child financial success–surely you don’t think that’s all genetic?
Honestly, given the profound impact parents have on their children, a little cosmetic surgery that doesn’t show seems a very minor thing.
irrelevant, it doesn’t prevent them learning another
irrelevant, it doesn’t prevent people giving up a religion (and of course no religion would dream of mandating some kind of physical branding of a child to show ownership would it?)
irrelevant, none of that precludes a child stopping one sport and starting another
one would hope so but I reject any comparison of genital mutilation to vaccination
They should be and will be free at a later time to generate their own tastes and preferences.
All things that can be reversed or improved upon by the free will of the child, none of the above is as irreversible as genital mutilation.
wow, this is how far the rot has spread? Because parents make bad choices (that are reversable) where is the harm in throwing in another that isn’t? All the things that you mention above are an unavoidable part of raising a child. They have to acquire some language or another, eat one food or another, learn one skill or another, they are all necessary and of course parents will handle this for better or worse in many ways. What I don’t see is where the necessity arises for bodily modification? why is that a choice that even has to made outside of avoiding greater harm?
I know that skin cancer affects the outer ears quite often so If I were to remove the outer ear cartilage of my children at birth that also would be acceptable…correct? After all it is purely cosmetic and definitely reduces the chances of skin cancer.