Discussion
Sylvaforever said:
Child abuse, mutilation is non gender specific.
Now go ahead and let us see how you try and turn that around.
Currently male circumcision is legal in the UK though. Hence it can't be child abuse...Now go ahead and let us see how you try and turn that around.
The situation is pretty clear to me.
1. FGM is illegal in the UK and anyone carrying it out here (or assisting UK citizens to travel overseas to receive it) are breaking the law and should be prosecuted.
2. Male circumcision is legal. Those who feel it shouldn't be - what are you doing about it? Have you written to your MP or just grumbled about it on a car forum.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Your knowledge is wrong. Many NHS hospitals will do circumcision, especially in areas of the UK where it's popular. The view is taken that it's going to be done anyway, may as well do it in a safe and sterile environment. Some NHS trusts however, will not fund it.
Exactly if done in a safe sterile environment. We can cut girls In The same way.wsurfa said:
terrydacktal said:
As I said, as an adult it's a horrendous operation. It has medical benefit.
Tongue tie has a medical benefitVaccinations have huge medical benefit to both the vaccinated and the wider population
Unless I misunderstood, I'm not sure what your point is?
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.
terrydacktal said:
wsurfa said:
terrydacktal said:
As I said, as an adult it's a horrendous operation. It has medical benefit.
Tongue tie has a medical benefitVaccinations have huge medical benefit to both the vaccinated and the wider population
Unless I misunderstood, I'm not sure what your point is?
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.
Secondly, tongue tie is not social it is medical. Mild will 99% not be treated, extreme will be for medical reasons
Lastly - what exactly are you preventing by circumcision?
terrydacktal said:
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.
Head of nail, meet hammer. The constant derailing of threads on FGM with infantile cries of "what about the poor boys" is utterly shameful. Grow up!
del mar said:
Exactly if done in a safe sterile environment. We can cut girls In The same way.
For the love of god.... The same way ? Really ?Both are mutilation but that's where the similarity ends.
I don't know if you really know what FGM is, it involves many forms and levels of surgery but the most commonly carried out is the
removal of the clitoris, clitoral hood and minor labia. If that is not mutilation then what is it ? the main organ of pleasure is removed.
This alone subjects the female to a life of reduced pleasure. Its a form of control and carried out to deny the female of pleasure.
If the same procedure was carried out on a man it would probably involve the removal of the glans of the penis and a 'tidy' up.
that isn't normal. and it should not be carried out. so many hide behind the its for the good of the person, for religious reasons etc...
but it impacts the girl drastically.
go and read up on this and understand it. if you come back still supporting it either for females or males then there is something wrong.
leave it up to the person to decide, you cant put it back once its taken. its mutilation and its invasive.
Is FGM type 1a acceptable?
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/o...
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/o...
Edited by alock on Saturday 15th July 11:00
There is a movement in the USA against circumcision and I know people who are having surgery to restore their foreskins because they resent being circumcised as children.
http://www.bloodstainedmen.com/
It is actually a pretty horrific procedure when babies are strapped down and circumcised and nurses talk of rows of baby boys screaming in pain in hospital wards after it's been done.
Instruments and details here: http://www.noharmm.org/instruments.htm
There have been many incidents of damage to the genitals and even death from surgical complications or subsequent infections after circumcisions. Removal of the foreskin means removal of nerve endings which are important in sexual pleasure as well as removal of natural lubrication.
Of course, plenty of men will say they have no problem with being circumcised because it's hard to know what you've lost when you've never experienced having it and it's hard to acknowledge your parents have done something bad to your body when they've always acted in your best interests. These campaigners have had plenty of aggressive reactions from circumcised men saying their opinions and protests are wrong.
In the USA especially it's a still a widespread procedure and parents can find it difficult to prevent hospitals routinely circumcising boys without asking as well as fighting against their parents and grandparents who think they should have it done to their babies.
The same can apply to women as well. They circumcise their daughters because they don't understand what a terrible thing has been done to them. It's part of their culture, they've been taught it's for the best and their parents have done what's right for them, they don't have any particular memory of the trauma and don't know what it's like not to be circumcised and so each generation goes on doing it to the next.
John Harvey Kellogg actually promoted circumcision as a way to stop masturbation. Think about that when you're eating your cornflakes.
http://pictorial.jezebel.com/john-harvey-kelloggs-...
http://www.bloodstainedmen.com/
It is actually a pretty horrific procedure when babies are strapped down and circumcised and nurses talk of rows of baby boys screaming in pain in hospital wards after it's been done.
Instruments and details here: http://www.noharmm.org/instruments.htm
There have been many incidents of damage to the genitals and even death from surgical complications or subsequent infections after circumcisions. Removal of the foreskin means removal of nerve endings which are important in sexual pleasure as well as removal of natural lubrication.
Of course, plenty of men will say they have no problem with being circumcised because it's hard to know what you've lost when you've never experienced having it and it's hard to acknowledge your parents have done something bad to your body when they've always acted in your best interests. These campaigners have had plenty of aggressive reactions from circumcised men saying their opinions and protests are wrong.
In the USA especially it's a still a widespread procedure and parents can find it difficult to prevent hospitals routinely circumcising boys without asking as well as fighting against their parents and grandparents who think they should have it done to their babies.
The same can apply to women as well. They circumcise their daughters because they don't understand what a terrible thing has been done to them. It's part of their culture, they've been taught it's for the best and their parents have done what's right for them, they don't have any particular memory of the trauma and don't know what it's like not to be circumcised and so each generation goes on doing it to the next.
John Harvey Kellogg actually promoted circumcision as a way to stop masturbation. Think about that when you're eating your cornflakes.
http://pictorial.jezebel.com/john-harvey-kelloggs-...
Edited by Blakewater on Saturday 15th July 11:10
alock said:
Is FGM type 1a acceptable?
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/o...
the very first words on that article...http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/o...
Edited by alock on Saturday 15th July 11:00
Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits. On the contrary, it is known to be harmful to girls and women in many ways. First and foremost, it is painful and traumatic. The removal of or damage to healthy, normal genital tissue interferes with the natural functioning of the body.....
if its there its generally there for a reason. FGM Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only again I will ask why ? The clitoris has many nerve endings and has function in adulthood, removal of that hood is removing the protection and exposing the glands, that has an effect.
what is it with this desire to modify and mutilate the body ?
That fold of skin protects and if you want an comparison ? how about if I remove your eyelids ? they serve no real function other than protecting your eyes. keeping them moist and protected. No ? Well same thing for other parts of your body. male or female there is covering to protect those intimate parts. keep your scalpel away and just stop it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What, in a country where you can litigate for absolutely anything, sue doctors, hospitals etc, and walk away with millions. Who'd have thought it!
Perhaps they just feel aggrieved that they were mutilated and left with deformed penises, whilst having had no say in the matter?ruggedscotty said:
if its there its generally there for a reason. FGM Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only again I will ask why ? The clitoris has many nerve endings and has function in adulthood, removal of that hood is removing the protection and exposing the glands, that has an effect.
FGM type 1a is equivalent to MGM. I'm trying to make the point that if people think MGM isn't as important, then you enter a debate of degrees of mutilation. If as society we accept MGM, exactly the same argument can be made to accept FGM type 1a.
Make all of it illegal. It's the only way. Pretending some types of mutilation aren't as bad as other types means it will never go away.
Loyly said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What, in a country where you can litigate for absolutely anything, sue doctors, hospitals etc, and walk away with millions. Who'd have thought it!
Perhaps they just feel aggrieved that they were mutilated and left with deformed penises, whilst having had no say in the matter?But to be fair, even the disproportionate high numbers in the USA still only amount to a tiny percentage of the total.
I'd wager that for every aggrieved cut man, there's half a dozen who, for medical reasons need to have the op, who wish their parents had had them done as babies. And thus saving them years of issues and a very unpleasant operation in adulthood.
I wonder what would happen if the uncircumcised adult son (who'd had problems with his foreskin) of a circumcised man sued his dad for not having him circumcised. I guess if that's going to happen anywhere, the USA would be the place to choose to run with it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Loyly said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What, in a country where you can litigate for absolutely anything, sue doctors, hospitals etc, and walk away with millions. Who'd have thought it!
Perhaps they just feel aggrieved that they were mutilated and left with deformed penises, whilst having had no say in the matter?But to be fair, even the disproportionate high numbers in the USA still only amount to a tiny percentage of the total.
I'd wager that for every aggrieved cut man, there's half a dozen who, for medical reasons need to have the op, who wish their parents had had them done as babies. And thus saving them years of issues and a very unpleasant operation in adulthood.
I wonder what would happen if the uncircumcised adult son (who'd had problems with his foreskin) of a circumcised man sued his dad for not having him circumcised. I guess if that's going to happen anywhere, the USA would be the place to choose to run with it.
It's an issue in the USA because it's still fairly routine to circumcise baby boys there for all sorts of reasons that are proven to be nonsense when you look at the fact that uncircumcised men in other parts of the world don't commonly have the problems the procedure is supposed to prevent.
The links between the conditions and circumcision are shaky. For example, circumcision is said to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections when ritual circumcision can actually increase the risk. It's also said to reduce the risk of Penile Cancer but Penile Cancer risk comes, among other things, from a build up of smegma. This can be prevented by basic hygiene and if someone suffers from phimosis, being unable to retract the foreskin, there are many basic ways to treat the condition, such as ointment, that don't require surgery. I'm sure men are generally not too stupid to practice basic hygiene, however, a circumcision wound is one where the routine dressing is a dirty nappy and the baby can't do anything to keep himself clean.
Complication rates exceed the cases of problems such as Penile Cancer and many complications and deaths are not directly related to circumcision when they're recorded which affects the statistics.
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC32536...
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-pr...
Human foreskins also have many uses, some such as skin grafts and scientific tests are honourable but they also have a large financial value in the cosmetics industry.
https://www.babble.com/mom/3-strange-uses-for-infa...
Men are increasingly speaking out against their circumcision and looking for ways to restore their foreskin. This is leading to an increasing number of websites and organised communities in relation to it.
http://www.restoringforeskin.org/beginners-guide-f...
Men often find it difficult to talk about any problems related to their sexual parts, or their health in general, hence the campaign to make Prostate Cancer something men deal with together in the way women deal with Breast Cancer. Circumcised men unhappy with their circumcisions feel embarrassment and shame which stops them speaking out and if they do they have to deal with people telling them they're whiners complaining about nothing, often women who would quite probably loudly support feminist issues but want to shut down men speaking out about damage done to their bodies.
Just look at some of the comments on this Daily Mail article, while many support the men looking for restoration, some from Americans ridicule them and some clearly come from a rather backward religious standpoint.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2449027/...
Whatever the health benefits attached to circumcision to keep it going as a practice, it boils down to religious ritual. The only people who routinely do it are those doing it blatantly as a religious practice, such as Jews and Muslims, and Americans who are a nation of people founded on rather extreme religious belief which promoted circumcision as something to stop excessive sexual desire.
Blakewater said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Loyly said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What, in a country where you can litigate for absolutely anything, sue doctors, hospitals etc, and walk away with millions. Who'd have thought it!
Perhaps they just feel aggrieved that they were mutilated and left with deformed penises, whilst having had no say in the matter?But to be fair, even the disproportionate high numbers in the USA still only amount to a tiny percentage of the total.
I'd wager that for every aggrieved cut man, there's half a dozen who, for medical reasons need to have the op, who wish their parents had had them done as babies. And thus saving them years of issues and a very unpleasant operation in adulthood.
I wonder what would happen if the uncircumcised adult son (who'd had problems with his foreskin) of a circumcised man sued his dad for not having him circumcised. I guess if that's going to happen anywhere, the USA would be the place to choose to run with it.
http://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/class-action-lawsui...
A few minutes research online will show you that. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Sunday 16th July 09:57
Fine, if they feel that suing is the right thing that's their choice. It's not anything I've done extensive research on because it's not what the protesters I know of are involved in or what their motivation is.
Lawyers are keen for FGM victims to sue, so you could equally argue the protest against that is motivated by money.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fgm-victims-mus...
Male circumcision is painful, difficult surgery with a lot of risk to the small baby involved, including that of death from blood loss or infection. It takes away sexual function and leads to complications and difficulties in later life such as improper healing and dryness.
Men who say they don't have problems may be generally all right but I doubt they go to penis comparison parties to know what an uncircumcised penis is like and how theirs should really be had it been left alone.
Lawyers are keen for FGM victims to sue, so you could equally argue the protest against that is motivated by money.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fgm-victims-mus...
Male circumcision is painful, difficult surgery with a lot of risk to the small baby involved, including that of death from blood loss or infection. It takes away sexual function and leads to complications and difficulties in later life such as improper healing and dryness.
Men who say they don't have problems may be generally all right but I doubt they go to penis comparison parties to know what an uncircumcised penis is like and how theirs should really be had it been left alone.
PotatoSalad said:
There ya go.
es is far more likely to get an std compared to a faithful married man regardless of whether they are circumcised.franki68 said:
PotatoSalad said:
There ya go.
es is far more likely to get an std compared to a faithful married man regardless of whether they are circumcised.If they want to massively increase their chance of catching an STI, then they can get circumcised by choice and not wear a condom - although this of course is highly selfish as it will put their partners at risk.
So if they really want to be circumcised they can make that conscious choice as an adult, and if they care about their and partners sexaul health, they can use condoms.
Or a bit of ABH for baby boys because of a book written in a desert a few thousand years ago and/or some victorian purience.
GBH for girls bad, ABH for boys good. Sounds like a good slogan
Blakewater said:
There is a movement in the USA against circumcision and I know people who are having surgery to restore their foreskins because they resent being circumcised as children.
http://www.bloodstainedmen.com/
It is actually a pretty horrific procedure when babies are strapped down and circumcised and nurses talk of rows of baby boys screaming in pain in hospital wards after it's been done.
Instruments and details here: http://www.noharmm.org/instruments.htm
There have been many incidents of damage to the genitals and even death from surgical complications or subsequent infections after circumcisions. Removal of the foreskin means removal of nerve endings which are important in sexual pleasure as well as removal of natural lubrication.
Of course, plenty of men will say they have no problem with being circumcised because it's hard to know what you've lost when you've never experienced having it and it's hard to acknowledge your parents have done something bad to your body when they've always acted in your best interests. These campaigners have had plenty of aggressive reactions from circumcised men saying their opinions and protests are wrong.
In the USA especially it's a still a widespread procedure and parents can find it difficult to prevent hospitals routinely circumcising boys without asking as well as fighting against their parents and grandparents who think they should have it done to their babies.
The same can apply to women as well. They circumcise their daughters because they don't understand what a terrible thing has been done to them. It's part of their culture, they've been taught it's for the best and their parents have done what's right for them, they don't have any particular memory of the trauma and don't know what it's like not to be circumcised and so each generation goes on doing it to the next.
John Harvey Kellogg actually promoted circumcision as a way to stop masturbation. Think about that when you're eating your cornflakes.
http://pictorial.jezebel.com/john-harvey-kelloggs-...
Utterly sickening.http://www.bloodstainedmen.com/
It is actually a pretty horrific procedure when babies are strapped down and circumcised and nurses talk of rows of baby boys screaming in pain in hospital wards after it's been done.
Instruments and details here: http://www.noharmm.org/instruments.htm
There have been many incidents of damage to the genitals and even death from surgical complications or subsequent infections after circumcisions. Removal of the foreskin means removal of nerve endings which are important in sexual pleasure as well as removal of natural lubrication.
Of course, plenty of men will say they have no problem with being circumcised because it's hard to know what you've lost when you've never experienced having it and it's hard to acknowledge your parents have done something bad to your body when they've always acted in your best interests. These campaigners have had plenty of aggressive reactions from circumcised men saying their opinions and protests are wrong.
In the USA especially it's a still a widespread procedure and parents can find it difficult to prevent hospitals routinely circumcising boys without asking as well as fighting against their parents and grandparents who think they should have it done to their babies.
The same can apply to women as well. They circumcise their daughters because they don't understand what a terrible thing has been done to them. It's part of their culture, they've been taught it's for the best and their parents have done what's right for them, they don't have any particular memory of the trauma and don't know what it's like not to be circumcised and so each generation goes on doing it to the next.
John Harvey Kellogg actually promoted circumcision as a way to stop masturbation. Think about that when you're eating your cornflakes.
http://pictorial.jezebel.com/john-harvey-kelloggs-...
Edited by Blakewater on Saturday 15th July 11:10
Anyone who does this to their baby for ritualistic or societal reasons doesn't deserve to be a parent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff