Discussion
For male circumcision to be the same as FGM you'd have to cut the poor lads bell end clean off. Only then is it similar.
The two practices come from completely different cultural origins and are not in anyway related. Male circumcision is not the male version of FGM.
In FGM they fully excise the clitoris, remove the labia and in some cases almost complete suture the vagina closed
How t f
k is that the same as clipping of a bit of foreskin?
The two practices come from completely different cultural origins and are not in anyway related. Male circumcision is not the male version of FGM.
In FGM they fully excise the clitoris, remove the labia and in some cases almost complete suture the vagina closed
How t f
k is that the same as clipping of a bit of foreskin? alock said:
dave_s13 said:
How t fk is that the same as clipping of a bit of foreskin?
Would you therefore be happy if they left the clitoris intact just trimmed the labia?k is that the same as clipping of a bit of foreskin? king moon, you moron. The 3 recognised types all include taking off all or part of the clitoris.
I don't care so much about male circumcision, compared to FGM it's relatively trivial.
Because they aren't the same.
dave_s13 said:
alock said:
dave_s13 said:
How t fk is that the same as clipping of a bit of foreskin?
Would you therefore be happy if they left the clitoris intact just trimmed the labia?k is that the same as clipping of a bit of foreskin? king moon, you moron. The 3 recognised types all include taking off all or part of the clitoris.
I don't care so much about male circumcision, compared to FGM it's relatively trivial.
Because they aren't the same.
1. Be against all circumcision.
2. Be for all circumcision.
3. Be for some and against others. It needs thought and intelligent discussion to define the line of what is appropriate.
It's ironic that you appear to be arguing for #3 while being unable to argue your point without resorting to personal insults. It's this exact response from you which means the only way forwards is #1.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
None whatsoever. I just don't think it's mutilation. Many people who are against it don't think it's mutilation. Men who have had it done, whether they are pleased, annoyed or ambivalent, don't think it's mutilation. Because it's not mutilation. Not even close.
That's not to support it or justify it. I don't like people piercing their baby's ears, but that's not mutilation either.
alock said:
There are 3 options:
1. Be against all circumcision.
2. Be for all circumcision.
3. Be for some and against others. It needs thought and intelligent discussion to define the line of what is appropriate.
4. Be against circumcision in principle, but not get hysterical and compare it to FGM, and to not really think it's an issue worth wasting that much time on until we have eradicated FGM completely. 1. Be against all circumcision.
2. Be for all circumcision.
3. Be for some and against others. It needs thought and intelligent discussion to define the line of what is appropriate.
Or to put it another way, I'm also against the common cold, but wouldn't think to raise my concerns about it on a thread about bone cancer!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
4. Be against circumcision in principle, but not get hysterical and compare it to FGM, and to not really think it's an issue worth wasting that much time on until we have eradicated FGM completely.
Or to put it another way, I'm also against the common cold, but wouldn't think to raise my concerns about it on a thread about bone cancer!
WordOr to put it another way, I'm also against the common cold, but wouldn't think to raise my concerns about it on a thread about bone cancer!
walm said:
herewego said:
walm said:
herewego said:
As far as I know circumcision is purely a Jewish thing.
You don't know very far.And nor do I want that sort of search in my browser history.
Edited by herewego on Friday 16th December 10:12
herewego said:
Quite right. It appears to be rite of passage nonsense the same as Jews, probably goes back to the same religious origins.
Lots of American men are circumcised for non religious reasons.I still say male or female, cutting bits off children should not be done unless for medical reasons.
Escapegoat said:
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.
I know 2 men circumcised as adults for medical reasons and they both say sex is better post op. But even that isn't great evidence as the reason they had the op in the first place was due to foreskin issues that probably effected their enjoyment pre op.
What we need is the opinion of a man who was circumcised for non medical reasons as an adult, and I don't know any.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff