FGM Parties

Author
Discussion

jakesmith

3,211 posts

109 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
Dromedary66 said:
Get over yourself, my wife is Jewish. But you carry on taking offence when none was given.

1.3% of male neonatal deaths in the USA are from an entirely elective procedure.

How anyone but a psychopath could think that should be allowed to continue I do not know.

I expect fewer girls die from FGM that that.

https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/boy...

https://theconversation.com/neonatal-circumcision-...

Edited by Dromedary66 on Monday 21st January 13:50
Thanks I think I'll be the one to decide if you calling me 'a Jew' is offensive to me
It's not your call whether you have 'given offence'
You've got lots of Muslim friends too no doubt, definitely not a racist



TwigtheWonderkid

27,826 posts

88 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
jakesmith said:
Thanks I think I'll be the one to decide if you calling me 'a Jew' is offensive to me
It's not your call whether you have 'given offence'
You've got lots of Muslim friends too no doubt, definitely not a racist
If you look back to my exchange with Dromedary66 on 10/9/18, it'll give you an idea of the level of intellect you are dealing with. Honestly mate, don't bother yourself with him. Just ignore and let the grown ups discuss the issue.

otolith

36,685 posts

142 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
jakesmith said:
Countdown said:
Speaking as somebody who was circumcised when very young I can honestly say Ive never felt there was anything missing.
Me too. I think that people who attempt to conflate FGM with circumcision have a nasty motivation for doing so, there is no comparison between the two as far as I am concerned

FGM victims suffer for their whole lives for starters. A lifetime of suffering from a misogynistic procedure designed to make sex unpleasurable, removing the pleasure of one of nature's most enjoyable gifts to humanity and leaving them exposed to a lifetime of pain, infection, disease.
Are you therefore OK with the anatomically equivalent form of FGM in which only the clitoral hood is cut?

WinstonWolf

70,782 posts

177 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
jakesmith said:
Dromedary66 said:
In my opinion even if it was just 1 person that was affected in that way it is enough of a reason for ritualistic and non-therapeutic circumcision to be outlawed entirely.
Thankfully, the worthy concept of protecting one person, is not the basis for changing legislation.

Dromedary66 said:
Just because you had it done to you because you're a Jew; had the misfortune to be born in a country where they cut off the ends of babies cocks as a matter of routine; or because yours didn't work properly does not mean that it should be allowed to continue because of some ahole backward traditions with people believing their sky daddy commands it of them.
Calling someone 'a Jew' really does tell me what I alluded to above in my other post about the unpleasant motivations of people who campaign on behalf of a group who don't want their support on this issue. Would you refer to someone as 'a black'? Are black people defined by their race? You are an antisemite and you are attempting to conflate a largely harmless practice with an exceptionally harmful one, in order to vilify Jews
It's not 'harmless', it's a decision that should only be made by the individual when they're an adult.

jakesmith

3,211 posts

109 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
It's not 'harmless',
It is harmless and especially so compared to FGM. I am Jewish, know loads of other Jewish people, have literally never come across a single person who this has caused any sort of issue for or ever heard of this being an issue. Try saying the same for FGM, you can't because likely 100% of people who have it done suffer to some extent. So don't conflate them. I'm not aware of any harm. I am not religious and didn't bother circumcising my son as I couldn't see any point but if it was something that was part of a deeply held belief set then I would do it, the baby cries for a few seconds & that's it. The person above characterising it as cutting off the end of the penis, what a load of rubbish. Having a haircut isn't cutting off the top of your head. The foreskin is not needed & is loosely held on and one of my mates at uni lost his in a 3some in the sea on holiday so I hardly see it as a trauma to be without. Also as I have tried to explain the intention is completely different, the intention isn't to inflict a lifetime of suffering on the victim and that is what people find abhorant about FGM and does not apply to circumcision

As for the circumcision mortality rate of 1.3% quoted above, presumably that's straight from Breitbart / Morning Star, and should be derided.


WinstonWolf said:
it's a decision that should only be made by the individual when they're an adult.
That doesn't apply to all manor of things that I wonder whether you get all frothed up about. Typically parents make decisions on behalf of their children up to the age of 18 for example in the UK. Decisions that are often highly influential and far reaching, decisions that can have devastating consequences, decisions that are often about the most lightweight subjects such as what car to buy. Would you ban parents from transporting children in cars that have lower than 5* NCAP rating? Smoking at home? Drinking whilst pregnant? Because these likely cause a lot more suffering and death amongst babies / children than circumcision, and arguably they are on even thinner moral ground as they are done out of lazyness / for pleasure, not even for the purpose of fulfilling a ritual that might be of great importance to people




Advertisement

NormarkSuperswede

168 posts

1 month

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
It's not 'harmless', it's a decision that should only be made by the individual when they're an adult.
exactly but the chosen few know better

jakesmith

3,211 posts

109 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
NormarkSuperswede said:
WinstonWolf said:
It's not 'harmless', it's a decision that should only be made by the individual when they're an adult.
exactly but the chosen few know better
Maybe you're 'the chosen few' who deems yourself fit from some unknown authority, to decide & judge what 'harm' or risks parents can / can't expose their children to. Why would you single this one out might I ask? If your argument is really so poorly thought out that you want to ban circumcision for non-consent reasons, I hope you are following this through and advocating banning everything harmful whilst you're at it as it's not just a few Jewish people circumcising their babies that causes harm.

Cars for example, a killer. The babies have no voice on whether they are taken on a journey. So ban all uneccesary car journeys for under 18's. Ban unhealthy diets for babies. Ban mothers from smoking, drinking etc whilst pregnant or breast feeding.

Or, focus on just one tiny area of percieved 'harm', that is done by a particular religion or group of people... hmmm right ok

NormarkSuperswede

168 posts

1 month

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
jakesmith said:
Maybe you're 'the chosen few' who deems yourself fit from some unknown authority, to decide & judge what 'harm' or risks parents can / can't expose their children to. Why would you single this one out might I ask? If your argument is really so poorly thought out that you want to ban circumcision for non-consent reasons, I hope you are following this through and advocating banning everything harmful whilst you're at it as it's not just a few Jewish people circumcising their babies that causes harm.

Cars for example, a killer. The babies have no voice on whether they are taken on a journey. So ban all uneccesary car journeys for under 18's. Ban unhealthy diets for babies. Ban mothers from smoking, drinking etc whilst pregnant or breast feeding.

Or, focus on just one tiny area of percieved 'harm', that is done by a particular religion or group of people... hmmm right ok
What part of "chosen few" refers to "jews"

Blue Oval84

4,566 posts

99 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
jakesmith said:
It is harmless and especially so compared to FGM. I am Jewish, know loads of other Jewish people, have literally never come across a single person who this has caused any sort of issue for or ever heard of this being an issue.
Well let's pretend that no kids have ever died from the elective procedure, although I find that unlikely.

I could dig out links very easily to at least one kid catching genital herpes from the bloke sucking his bleeding penis after the procedure. I'm pretty sure it was the BBC that ran the story actually, if that's a respectable enough source?

That's before we even get to the dulling of sexual sensation. I know someone who had it done later in life for medical reasons and he says that it does reduce sensation and detracts from sex compared to pre-op. Of course, no one who has it done as a baby will be aware of that.

Clearly it's not harmless, and anyone who wants their kids to have it done should have to wait until the kid is 18 and able to decide for themselves.

Of course that might see uptake rates decline slightly!

ETA - yes I'm aware it's not as harmful as FGM, which is an even more abhorrent practice, but just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean either should be allowed.

jakesmith

3,211 posts

109 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
NormarkSuperswede said:
What part of "chosen few" refers to "jews"
That would be the bit that says 'chosen few', this is due to the context which consists of an entire thread characterised by a few posters being apparently appalled at a predominantly Jewish practice, circumcision, who are attempting to vilify practitioners of this, by conflating it with a completely different and quite horrific practice that it bears no resemblance to either in the thinking behind it or the impact it has on the individual concerned.

The words 'chosen few' are being used to mock a perceived sense of moral superiority amongst Jews, which is a bog standard antisemitic trope that has been around as long as antisemitism. Very easy to deny by those who chose not to see it, but also plainly obvious to anyone who knows about or has suffered this kind of attitude. Very sad to see people perpetuate this when the end result is so well know.

And here come the denials & insults when it's perfectly clear what was said & why.... 3...2...1....

jakesmith

3,211 posts

109 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
Blue Oval84 said:
Well let's pretend that no kids have ever died from the elective procedure, although I find that unlikely.

You haven't 'found' or proven anything whatsoever

Blue Oval84 said:
I could dig out links very easily to at least one kid catching genital herpes from the bloke sucking his bleeding penis after the procedure. I'm pretty sure it was the BBC that ran the story actually, if that's a respectable enough source?


If that did happen that's a freakshow and an extreme outlying example. Sounds more like user error to me. How you can think that is a credible reason to ban something is mind boggling. The world must be a scary place for you. Why not ban all people from having children, what with the occasional case of neglect in the news.

Blue Oval84 said:
That's before we even get to the dulling of sexual sensation. I know someone who had it done later in life for medical reasons and he says that it does reduce sensation and detracts from sex compared to pre-op. Of course, no one who has it done as a baby will be aware of that.

Clearly it's not harmless, and anyone who wants their kids to have it done should have to wait until the kid is 18 and able to decide for themselves.


I don't think you can say 'clearly' after giving a couple of unproven, outlying and highly anecdotal examples

I respect your right to hold an opinion on this or any matter but you haven't come close to challenging my arguments in any meaningful way

Cyder

6,379 posts

158 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
Astonishing isn’t it that in the 21st century people are still brainwashed enough to think that it’s ok to lop a piece of skin off their baby in the name of their chosen sky fairy and the make out it’s completely normal and harmless.

I fully concur that sometimes for medical reasons it’s necessary, but to cut it off a baby for crying out loud.
I asked a Muslim colleague of mine why he had his son cut, “because Mohammed had his done”.

Utterly baffling. nuts

jakesmith

3,211 posts

109 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
Cyder said:
Astonishing isn’t it that in the 21st century people are still brainwashed enough to think that it’s ok to lop a piece of skin off their baby in the name of their chosen sky fairy and the make out it’s completely normal and harmless.

I fully concur that sometimes for medical reasons it’s necessary, but to cut it off a baby for crying out loud.
I asked a Muslim colleague of mine why he had his son cut, “because Mohammed had his done”.

Utterly baffling. nuts
Is it harmful? I’ve had someone above claim a baby got herpes as someone put the cut penis in his mouth which is going some as probably the stupidest argument for banning something I have ever read, someone claim that 1.3% of circumcision babies die, again completely unproven, and little else. To be honest if the 1.3% thing was proven true I’d change my opinion and admit I’m wrong right now

Small data set you’ve looked at there too really, sample of one. Just as well you don’t extrapolate on that basis when forecasting things like election results based on asking one person in the pub.

Edited by jakesmith on Monday 21st January 21:24

Cyder

6,379 posts

158 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
It’s unecessarily cutting a piece of a child’s sexual organ off. How can it be classed as anything other than harmful?

While we’re there why not cut the earlobe off, at leas the foreskin protects the glans. The lower earlobe does nothing, hell, you may as well take the babies appendix out too while you’re there.

Ah, of course, the sky fairy didn’t dictate those bits need removing did he? Like I said, utterly baffling. nuts

Small data set of one as my example may be, but clearly it’s the same reason that millions of Muslims and Jews are having bits of their babies snipped off.

Edited by Cyder on Monday 21st January 21:35

jakesmith

3,211 posts

109 months

Monday 21st January
quotequote all
Cyder said:
It’s unecessarily cutting a piece of a child’s sexual organ off. How can it be classed as anything other than harmful?

While we’re there why not cut the earlobe off, at leas the foreskin protects the glans. The lower earlobe does nothing, hell, you may as well take the babies appendix out too while you’re there.

Ah, of course, the sky fairy didn’t dictate those bits need removing did he? Like I said, utterly baffling. nuts

Small data set of one as my example may be, but clearly it’s the same reason that millions of Muslims and Jews are having bits of their babies snipped off.

Edited by Cyder on Monday 21st January 21:35
It is uneccesary, you're not wrong there I fully agree on that

I would argue that 'harm' is only caused if the person suffers which I am arguing they do not

You home is not harmed by you knocking down a non-functional superfluous wall on your driveway that you do not need and don't miss once gone

Cutting off earlobes by contrast would cause immense harm socially as it is highly visible and would make the child / adult appear extremely unconventional and be mocked / ostracised in a society that places high emphasis on image / beauty

the phrase 'Bits of their babies snipped off' is a sensationalist exaggeration of the practice

It is disingenuous to conflate this with using acid to burn a baby gir's vagina and scar them & leave them vulnerable to infection for life & unable to enjoy sex forever, or remove it completely with a knife. How anyone can make a comparison is ludicrous and I believe most right thinking people would agree with this

otolith

36,685 posts

142 months

Tuesday 22nd January
quotequote all
otolith said:
jakesmith said:
Countdown said:
Speaking as somebody who was circumcised when very young I can honestly say Ive never felt there was anything missing.
Me too. I think that people who attempt to conflate FGM with circumcision have a nasty motivation for doing so, there is no comparison between the two as far as I am concerned

FGM victims suffer for their whole lives for starters. A lifetime of suffering from a misogynistic procedure designed to make sex unpleasurable, removing the pleasure of one of nature's most enjoyable gifts to humanity and leaving them exposed to a lifetime of pain, infection, disease.
Are you therefore OK with the anatomically equivalent form of FGM in which only the clitoral hood is cut?
Are you?

wc98

6,991 posts

78 months

Tuesday 22nd January
quotequote all
jakesmith said:
Thankfully, the worthy concept of protecting one person, is not the basis for changing legislation.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6122a2.htm?s_cid=mm6122a2_w
Herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection commonly causes "cold sores" (HSV type 1 [HSV-1]) and genital herpes (HSV-1 or HSV type 2 [HSV-2]); HSV infection in newborns can result in death or permanent disability. During November 2000–December 2011, a total of 11 newborn males had laboratory-confirmed HSV infection in the weeks following out-of-hospital Jewish ritual circumcision, investigators from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) learned. Ten of the 11 newborns were hospitalized; two died.

only 2 dead babies out of 11 that contracted the disease died. is that acceptable to you ?

amusingduck

3,835 posts

74 months

Tuesday 22nd January
quotequote all
jakesmith said:
Blue Oval84 said:
I could dig out links very easily to at least one kid catching genital herpes from the bloke sucking his bleeding penis after the procedure. I'm pretty sure it was the BBC that ran the story actually, if that's a respectable enough source?

If that did happen that's a freakshow and an extreme outlying example. Sounds more like user error to me. How you can think that is a credible reason to ban something is mind boggling. The world must be a scary place for you. Why not ban all people from having children, what with the occasional case of neglect in the news.
User error!!!! roflroflroflroflrofl

For fks sake Larry, how many times must I tell you, that's not how you suck a baby's penis!

amusingduck

3,835 posts

74 months

Tuesday 22nd January
quotequote all
otolith said:
otolith said:
jakesmith said:
Countdown said:
Speaking as somebody who was circumcised when very young I can honestly say Ive never felt there was anything missing.
Me too. I think that people who attempt to conflate FGM with circumcision have a nasty motivation for doing so, there is no comparison between the two as far as I am concerned

FGM victims suffer for their whole lives for starters. A lifetime of suffering from a misogynistic procedure designed to make sex unpleasurable, removing the pleasure of one of nature's most enjoyable gifts to humanity and leaving them exposed to a lifetime of pain, infection, disease.
Are you therefore OK with the anatomically equivalent form of FGM in which only the clitoral hood is cut?
Are you?
Won't touch that with a bargepole, will he?

Type R Tom

2,450 posts

87 months

Tuesday 22nd January
quotequote all
If human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, why didn’t he just make boys and girls without that bit? Or is the argument like needing glasses and that God didn’t’ quite get it right and man needs to help a bit?

I suppose if you don’t believe in evolution and that those parts where necessary it can makes sense but I just struggle to understand why man feels the need to “improve” what I would imagine God thought was perfection.