FGM Parties

[Countdown]

ruggedscotty said:

FFS ! what a stupid thing to say.......

Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.

So you come to me and cut off the foreskin of my penis, you are mutilating me, pure and simple. You are removing a piece of skin that covers the glans, its a biological part of your body, much the same as your nose eyes ears toes etc. it does a function it keeps the glans moist and protected. So you remove that then you are mutilating the penis. So dont come on here and say that you are not.

Circumcision hasn't degraded the appearance or function of my todger. Neither does it feel unnaturally dry.

Obvs Mrs C might disagree.......

[Uncle John]

ruggedscotty said:

Uncle John said:

Isn't it to do with the M in FGM, as in mutilation?

Circumcision isn't mutilation of the male genitalia.

FFS ! what a stupid thing to say.......

Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body.

So you come to me and cut off the foreskin of my penis, you are mutilating me, pure and simple. You are removing a piece of skin that covers the glans, its a biological part of your body, much the same as your nose eyes ears toes etc. it does a function it keeps the glans moist and protected. So you remove that then you are mutilating the penis. So dont come on here and say that you are not.

Let's just say your and my definition of mutilation are very different then.

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

herewego said:

Uncle John said:

Isn't it to do with the M in FGM, as in mutilation?

Circumcision isn't mutilation of the male genitalia.

Of course it is.

It really isn't. If it was, medical professionals wouldn't do it without a medical reason.

Without consent it is, children are unable to consent.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

herewego said:

Uncle John said:

Isn't it to do with the M in FGM, as in mutilation?

Circumcision isn't mutilation of the male genitalia.

Of course it is.

It really isn't. If it was, medical professionals wouldn't do it without a medical reason.

Without consent it is, children are unable to consent.

Consent is a separate issue to mutilation. If you can off my leg without my consent, it's mutilation. If a surgeon does it to save my life, with my consent, it's still mutilation. It's mutilation I've agreed to. But mutilation is mutilation, with consent or not.

If circumcision is mutilation, then you're saying that thousands, maybe millions, of medical professionals are mutilating young boys across the world, for not good reason. I don't think that's true. Circumcision does not meet my definition of mutilation, not even close. The fact that medical pros do it is one of the reasons why it doesn't.

[ruggedscotty]

has anyone actually seen what happens in FGM compared to say male circumcision ?

two completely different procedures. the male they remove the foreskin, in the female they remove a good bit more, google it and read up on it and you will be horrified at how barbaric the practice is.

If it is not required for medical reasons then it should not be done.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutila...

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Circumcision-in-child...

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

herewego said:

Uncle John said:

Isn't it to do with the M in FGM, as in mutilation?

Circumcision isn't mutilation of the male genitalia.

Of course it is.

It really isn't. If it was, medical professionals wouldn't do it without a medical reason.

Without consent it is, children are unable to consent.

Consent is a separate issue to mutilation. If you can off my leg without my consent, it's mutilation. If a surgeon does it to save my life, with my consent, it's still mutilation. It's mutilation I've agreed to. But mutilation is mutilation, with consent or not.

If circumcision is mutilation, then you're saying that thousands, maybe millions, of medical professionals are mutilating young boys across the world, for not good reason. I don't think that's true. Circumcision does not meet my definition of mutilation, not even close. The fact that medical pros do it is one of the reasons why it doesn't.

Surgery without consent is mutilation. A child cannot consent. If it's for medical reasons then fine, for any other reason it's not. If a person wants it doing they can choose to have it done as an adult. It is not our place to impose our will on another.

[handpaper]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

WinstonWolf said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

herewego said:

Uncle John said:

Isn't it to do with the M in FGM, as in mutilation?

Circumcision isn't mutilation of the male genitalia.

Of course it is.

It really isn't. If it was, medical professionals wouldn't do it without a medical reason.

Without consent it is, children are unable to consent.

Consent is a separate issue to mutilation. If you can off my leg without my consent, it's mutilation. If a surgeon does it to save my life, with my consent, it's still mutilation. It's mutilation I've agreed to. But mutilation is mutilation, with consent or not.

If circumcision is mutilation, then you're saying that thousands, maybe millions, of medical professionals are mutilating young boys across the world, for not good reason. I don't think that's true. Circumcision does not meet my definition of mutilation, not even close. The fact that medical pros do it is one of the reasons why it doesn't.

You're arguing in a circle:

Because circumcision is not mutilation, medical professionals are not mutilating young boys.
Because medical professionals perform it, circumcision is not mutilation.


"We all say it, so it must be true". Didn't work for the Bandar-log, doesn't work long-term for any group.
The medical profession has a long and inglorious history of ill-conceived, unnecessary and downright harmful procedures.

Have a read of this article :

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?opt...

TL:DR - It's been popular for less than a century, owes more to pushy medics and ill-informed busybodies than to respectable medical science, and it's been in decline even in the US for several decades.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

WinstonWolf said:

Surgery without consent is mutilation.

I don't think so. If something is mutilating, it doesn't stop being mutilating just because you have consent or it's a medical necessity. As said, if I surgeon cuts off my leg with my consent to save my life, it's still mutilation.

By the same token, not all surgery is mutilating, be it necessary or with consent.

[terrydacktal]

WinstonWolf said:

Surgery without consent is mutilation.

A child cannot consent.

If it's for medical reasons then fine, for any other reason it's not.

Ask a nurse in an EMI home whether or not it's a good idea and you'll probably be told that it's a very good idea, bordering on medical. Really, the only time to do it without serious compromise to everyday life is as an infant. What are your thoughts on that?

[WinstonWolf]

terrydacktal said:

WinstonWolf said:

Surgery without consent is mutilation.

A child cannot consent.

If it's for medical reasons then fine, for any other reason it's not.

Ask a nurse in an EMI home whether or not it's a good idea and you'll probably be told that it's a very good idea, bordering on medical. Really, the only time to do it without serious compromise to everyday life is as an infant. What are your thoughts on that?

It's no one's decision other than the person having it done without medical need.

Medical need, it's OK.

Any other reason, give the choice to the child when they're over the age of consent.

It isn't a decision anyone else should force on another person without their explicit consent.

[anonymous-user]

It does seem a little like ABH and GBH against kids.

GBH is much worse and so is illegal, however (apparently) a bit of ABH never hurt anyone, so this is fine for boys.

Millennial old customs with a bit of victorian anti-mastubatory madness added in good measure as a reason to justify slicing & dicing a baby boys genitals.

From my perspective even the attempt to justify is more than a little strange.

[terrydacktal]

WinstonWolf said:

It's no one's decision other than the person having it done without medical need.

Medical need, it's OK.

Any other reason, give the choice to the child when they're over the age of consent.

Tongue tie snipping isn't a medical 'need', should that wait till child is over the age of consent? How about vaccinations - an invasive procedure that is not medically needed on a child who is too young to provide consent.

[anonymous-user]

terrydacktal said:

Tongue tie snipping isn't a medical 'need', should that wait till child is over the age of consent? How about vaccinations - an invasive procedure that is not medically needed on a child who is too young to provide consent.

Well firstly, apart from the ability to feed, possible speech developmental issues, and secondly the minor problems with death, paralysis, loss of sight etc

But apart from those, no, no medical need.

[WinstonWolf]

terrydacktal said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's no one's decision other than the person having it done without medical need.

Medical need, it's OK.

Any other reason, give the choice to the child when they're over the age of consent.

Tongue tie snipping isn't a medical 'need', should that wait till child is over the age of consent? How about vaccinations - an invasive procedure that is not medically needed on a child who is too young to provide consent.

Vaccinations are performed on a medical need basis.

We shouldn't enforce our decision on a child, let them decide when they're an adult.

[terrydacktal]

WinstonWolf said:

terrydacktal said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's no one's decision other than the person having it done without medical need.

Medical need, it's OK.

Any other reason, give the choice to the child when they're over the age of consent.

Tongue tie snipping isn't a medical 'need', should that wait till child is over the age of consent? How about vaccinations - an invasive procedure that is not medically needed on a child who is too young to provide consent.

Vaccinations are performed on a medical need basis.

We shouldn't enforce our decision on a child, let them decide when they're an adult.

As I said, as an adult it's a horrendous operation. It has medical benefit.

[anonymous-user]

terrydacktal said:

As I said, as an adult it's a horrendous operation. It has medical benefit.

Tongue tie has a medical benefit
Vaccinations have huge medical benefit to both the vaccinated and the wider population

Unless I misunderstood, I'm not sure what your point is?

[terrydacktal]

wsurfa said:

terrydacktal said:

As I said, as an adult it's a horrendous operation. It has medical benefit.

Tongue tie has a medical benefit
Vaccinations have huge medical benefit to both the vaccinated and the wider population

Unless I misunderstood, I'm not sure what your point is?

Tongue tie is social not medical.
Vaccinations are prophalctycs, like a circumcision.

Not sure of YOUR point really but it's fine to jump into the conversation despite it being rude.

[Sylvaforever]

So now the state of play is to equate life preserving vaccinations with non consensual child mutilation

RIGHT.

[terrydacktal]

Sylvaforever said:

So now the state of play is to equate life preserving vaccinations with non consensual child mutilation

RIGHT.

Way to use drama to try and make a point.

For the record, I'm not cut and neither am I particularly pro it but I disagree entirely with the dramatic use of semantics to argue its case.

It is very clearly NOT child mutilation and I've yet to meet a cut male who would have it entire.

The disgrace is that a thread about FGM has been steered towards male circumcision which is completely and utterly different. I suppose some people find it very difficult to empathise with women so would rather discuss something closer to home. Awful.

[Sylvaforever]

terrydacktal said:

Sylvaforever said:

So now the state of play is to equate life preserving vaccinations with non consensual child mutilation

RIGHT.

Way to use drama to try and make a point.

For the record, I'm not cut and neither am I particularly pro it but I disagree entirely with the dramatic use of semantics to argue its case.

It is very clearly NOT child mutilation and I've yet to meet a cut male who would have it entire.

The disgrace is that a thread about FGM has been steered towards male circumcision which is completely and utterly different. I suppose some people find it very difficult to empathise with women so would rather discuss something closer to home. Awful.

Child abuse, mutilation is non gender specific.



Now go ahead and let us see how you try and turn that around.