FGM Parties

[Cyder]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!!!!

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

[amusingduck]

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]

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.

[WinstonWolf]

jakesmith said:

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

You use the term 'frothing' yet all I did was point out that it's a decision that should be made by the individual when they're 18. I guess deep down you know I'm right...

By all means have yourself circumcised when you're old enough to decide for yourself, but don't inflict your choices on another.

• All* surgery carries risks, elective surgery shouldn't be performed on infants.

[PugwasHDJ80]

i was Circumcised for medical reasons at 13 (i like to pretend it was because my knob was too bit, rather than my foreskin being too tight.... )

In retrospect i wish they hadn't done it- its never been right since. skin is thin, sometimes splits and bleeds (which is very sore), starting to lose feeling at 36, doesn't look great,

Lots of reasons to wish i could reverse it.

The idea that its entirely without consequence is fallacious

(and i'm so please with myself for being able to use that last word here )

[Dromedary66]

jakesmith said:

WinstonWolf said:

It's not 'harmless',

The foreskin is not needed & is loosely held on

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

At birth it is fused to the glans. It has to be forcibly ripped from the glans, which is why there is so much blood. I appreciate you wouldn't know how it works as your parents chose to cut yours off when you were 8 days old.

it is very much needed, it has thousands of nerves and protects the bell-end, otherwise it gets completely ketatinized and has the sensitivity of shoe leather.

And actually the intention in many cultures years back was to cause suffering and prevent masturbation which was seen as sinful. Lots of similarities to FGM there as well.

[NormarkSuperswede]

And most women like the feel of the skin moving backwards and forwards over the head during sex .Its the added bonus

[Dromedary66]

NormarkSuperswede said:

And most women like the feel of the skin moving backwards and forwards over the head during sex .Its the added bonus

Absolutely. It really has huge value.

That's what annoys me most about people without one, and those who want to inflict it on non-censenting babies/children, claiming it serves no purpose. It is done either out of ignorance, or not wanting to accept they have lost something which is infact, very useful to have.

[chippy17]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/moral-land...

[Lotobear]

"15 square inches of skin"..did I read that right?

[tannhauser]

jakesmith said:

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

What a bellend. Quite an apt topic tbh.

[Tired]

If you're a religious person, and you approve of male circumcision because your religion tells you to, just say so.

I'll absolutely think less of you as a result, but what do you care, you're going to heaven (or wherever) and I'm not.

But to pretend there's any other justifiable reason for it in this day and age, unless it's actually required for medical reasons, is quite concerning.

Also, I'm not clued up on the PC terms, but if you're jewish, what's wrong with being referred to as a Jew? What's offensive about it?

Do Christian's get upset when they're called a Christian? Do followers of Islam get upset for being called a Muslim?

[herewego]

Tired said:

If you're a religious person, and you approve of male circumcision because your religion tells you to, just say so.

I'll absolutely think less of you as a result, but what do you care, you're going to heaven (or wherever) and I'm not.

But to pretend there's any other justifiable reason for it in this day and age, unless it's actually required for medical reasons, is quite concerning.

Also, I'm not clued up on the PC terms, but if you're jewish, what's wrong with being referred to as a Jew? What's offensive about it?

Do Christian's get upset when they're called a Christian? Do followers of Islam get upset for being called a Muslim?

When you put ish on the end of a word it reduces the meaning to "similar to". Jake said he doesn't practice so I guess he isn't a Jew but is a bit similar to. It's a bit telling though that he finds the actual word offensive. Many people are trying to shake off religion and I suppose it's not always easy.

[Tired]

herewego said:

When you put ish on the end of a word it reduces the meaning to "similar to". Jake said he doesn't practice so I guess he isn't a Jew but is a bit similar to. It's a bit telling though that he finds the actual word offensive. Many people are trying to shake off religion and I suppose it's not always easy.

Someone that's "Jewish" isn't a Jew, they're just similar to a Jew?

[j_4m]

amusingduck said:

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?

Or how about FGM being carried out with the modern, clean surgical techniques of male circumcision? Should cut down on all the infection, pain and death. It's just a bit of skin after all. Why stop there? The appendix is a bit of a bugger, let's just whip that out at birth along with those tonsil things. Nasty bunch of germs can get caught up in those.

[herewego]

Tired said:

herewego said:

When you put ish on the end of a word it reduces the meaning to "similar to". Jake said he doesn't practice so I guess he isn't a Jew but is a bit similar to. It's a bit telling though that he finds the actual word offensive. Many people are trying to shake off religion and I suppose it's not always easy.

Someone that's "Jewish" isn't a Jew, they're just similar to a Jew?

Sorry I should have put a smiley on it, I was being a bit facetious but I don't know how jews or jewish people view those words, it was idle speculation, it doesn't interest me that much.