FGM Parties

[hidetheelephants]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Dubious reasoning; the entire surface of the bobby's helmet is a mucous membrane, as is presumably the lower portion of the urethra, so chopping lumps off dicks is a poor bet compared to wearing a condom in the prophylaxis stakes.

[Jaguar steve]

Don said:

FGM and MGM are utterly abhorrent and totally unnecessary. These practices must be stamped out, IMO.

Absolutely.

Unless its medically essential inflicting either on another person too young to make the choice for themselves is a absolutely barbaric practice that has no place in any society or community that wishes to be considered civilised.

Sure, if as a responsible adult you decide to mutilate your own body by slicing bits off then go ahead but nobody has any right whatsoever to facilitate mutilating anybody else's.

[FredClogs]

Jaguar steve said:

if as a responsible adult you decide to mutilate your own body by slicing bits off then go ahead but nobody has any right whatsoever to facilitate mutilating anybody else's.

/Thread...

I'm surprised there is even a debate about it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Escapegoat said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No such thing as MGM. Regardless of it being right or wrong, it isn't mutilation. If it was, there wouldn't be literally tens of millions of men not remotely bothered that they'd been "mutilated".

Hang on! There have been many millions of women who are not bothered that they've been "mutilated". So not-bothered are they, that they happily take their daughters through the same "mutilation".

We do the subject of male circumcision every year or so on PH. And each time, some ordinarily right-on PHers discard their principles and say: "oh, that's different. It's OK for male children to be abused, even though they are unable to consent and it's irreversible."

Where did I say male circumcision was ok? All I said was that it isn't mutilation. For a start, male circumcision if far more prevalent. I'm not sure your claim that "many millions of women" are not complaining is true.

I don't know the world population of FGM victims but at a guess, considering the populatity of male circumcision in the USA, I would guess that there could be 1K circumcised men for every 1 FGM victim.

Yet despite this disparity, a large number female victims are very vocal about their suffering whereas hardly any men are bothered. Also, a large number of FGM victims would be vocal if they weren't so oppressed. I don't think that applies to men.

8% of all men are auto circumcised. That is the foreskin is permanently withdrawn naturally. So they look identical to a circumcised man naturally. So you can't even look at a circumcised man and say "you've been mutilated" because they may not have been.

Mutilation is a very strong word. By applying that word to male circumcision, all you do is lessen the severity of FGM, and harm the fight against it, but you don't enhance the fight against male circumcision. Because most circumcised men just laugh at the very idea that they've been mutilated, even if they themselves aren't pro circumcision.

[walm]

FredClogs said:

Jaguar steve said:

if as a responsible adult you decide to mutilate your own body by slicing bits off then go ahead but nobody has any right whatsoever to facilitate mutilating anybody else's.

/Thread...

I'm surprised there is even a debate about it.

Exactly.

[FredClogs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You're making a mistake to assume because something that's niche it's wrong and something that's mainstream is right.

And isn't the point that FGM or MGM isn't niche in certain cultures, it's the norm.

[Cotty]

StottyEvo said:

Because cutting baby dicks causes little to no harm. I'd call that a valid reason for why it isn't covered.

Little harm you say?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Cotty said:

StottyEvo said:

Because cutting baby dicks causes little to no harm. I'd call that a valid reason for why it isn't covered.

Little harm you say?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec...

That article relates to a non medical person carrying out a circumcision. Millions of circumcisions are carried out a few hours or days post birth by a doctor. What's the mortality rate for those.

Any medical procedure carried out by a non qualified fool is going to carry risks.

[Cotty]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Any medical procedure carried out by a non qualified fool is going to carry risks.

Trouble is from what I have read most FGM is carried out by non qualified women.

[FredClogs]

Cotty said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Any medical procedure carried out by a non qualified fool is going to carry risks.

Trouble is from what I have read most FGM is carried out by non qualified women.

Would it make a difference it it wasn't, save for some infection rates?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Cotty said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Any medical procedure carried out by a non qualified fool is going to carry risks.

Trouble is from what I have read most FGM is carried out by non qualified women.

That's because no doctor would ever carry out such an unnecessary horrific mutilation. It's barbaric and dangerous.

The fact that many doctors carry out male circumcision adds to my argument that it just isn't mutilation.

It may not be right, but mutilation it's not.

[FredClogs]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Cotty said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Any medical procedure carried out by a non qualified fool is going to carry risks.

Trouble is from what I have read most FGM is carried out by non qualified women.

That's because no doctor would ever carry out such an unnecessary horrific mutilation. It's barbaric and dangerous.

The fact that many doctors carry out male circumcision adds to my argument that it just isn't mutilation.

It may not be right, but mutilation it's not.

Is it coincidence that routine circumcision is prevalent (in the west) in countries with private medical provisions and in the UK where we have centrally funded medical provision run largely on medical decisions made by medics it's much less common?

Would you tattoo a child?

[Cotty]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That's because no doctor would ever carry out such an unnecessary horrific mutilation. It's barbaric and dangerous.

I don't understand why so many women are so intent on inflicting this mutilation on young girls.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The fact that many doctors carry out male circumcision adds to my argument that it just isn't mutilation.

It may not be right, but mutilation it's not.

If its for medical reasons then its fine, anything else is mutilation and by that I mean unnecessary disfiguring.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

FredClogs said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Cotty said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Any medical procedure carried out by a non qualified fool is going to carry risks.

Trouble is from what I have read most FGM is carried out by non qualified women.

That's because no doctor would ever carry out such an unnecessary horrific mutilation. It's barbaric and dangerous.

The fact that many doctors carry out male circumcision adds to my argument that it just isn't mutilation.

It may not be right, but mutilation it's not.

Is it coincidence that routine circumcision is prevalent (in the west) in countries with private medical provisions and in the UK where we have centrally funded medical provision run largely on medical decisions made by medics it's much less common?

Would you tattoo a child?

I wouldn't tattoo an adult. I think they are hideous. But they are probably not mutilation.

I'm not arguing for circumcision, just saying it isn't mutilation.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Cotty said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That's because no doctor would ever carry out such an unnecessary horrific mutilation. It's barbaric and dangerous.

I don't understand why so many women are so intent on inflicting this mutilation on young girls.

Because they are ill educated idiots who put superstition above logic.

Cotty said:

If its for medical reasons then its fine, anything else is mutilation and by that I mean unnecessary disfiguring.

Mutilation is mutilation, regardless of necessity. If a surgeon removes my leg to save my life, it's just as mutilating than if my leg it cut off by a crazed knifeman.

Circumcision isn't disfiguring. Most people would say it's aesthetically pleasing.

[herewego]

walm said:

FredClogs said:

Jaguar steve said:

if as a responsible adult you decide to mutilate your own body by slicing bits off then go ahead but nobody has any right whatsoever to facilitate mutilating anybody else's.

/Thread...

I'm surprised there is even a debate about it.

Exactly.

Me too. Male or female it's child abuse.

[Escapegoat]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Mutilation is a very strong word. By applying that word to male circumcision, all you do is lessen the severity of FGM, and harm the fight against it,

No, that's all I do in your blinkered worldview (and I've heard similar claims about a holistic approach to domestic violence).

GM is child abuse. You claim that circumsised blokes don't really complain about MGM. The reasons for that will be manifold, but chief among them is simple logic: it was done when they were young, unable to consent, and they therefore have zero knowledge of life/sex with an intact foreskin.

[Dromedary66]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Circumcision isn't disfiguring. Most people would say it's aesthetically pleasing.

Probably not. Only women conditioned to it would think so. Your comment just goes to show how a practice, however inhumane it is, can be deemed as something other than abhorrent, simply because it has been practiced for thousands of years.

Unless you find circumcision scars, two tone shafts, bellends with the sensitivity of a shoe heel and deformed frenulums aesthetically pleasing I suppose.

Edited by Dromedary66 on Thursday 15th December 19:31

[EddieSteadyGo]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Circumcision isn't disfiguring. Most people would say it's aesthetically pleasing.

Most people would describe it as aesthetically pleasing?

Interested to see the Gallup Poll that one was in.

[Dromedary66]

Below is a photo from Jewish MGM party. Note the Mohel (Chief Rabbi dick cutter) is sucking the newly circumcised penis in order to remove the blood.



Photo from a FGM paty



Both relics from ill educated savages and deluded fools believing in higher powers.

Both need eradicating from the world.