Female circumcision a problem in the UK

[Spade]

This is a disgusting practice. I'm all for respecting other cultures, but that's when it's not a human rights violation. I'm tepid enough at the thought of circumsizing baby boys for the sheer sakes of cleanliness and religion, but the idea of a grown man cutting off a girl's clitoris to boost his own sense of worth is disgusting. And no, there isn't some "we must understand the differences in other people" way about it. This is stealing away another human being's ability to feel pleasure. You wouldn't like it if some jerk came in your house and broke the game console you paid out the nose for with no criminal action taken, and you sure as hell wouldn't like it if he continued to waltz in and break every possession you had that so much as made you happy for the rest of your life. This is no different- hell, it's much worse. Why people would go out of their way to defend this under the guise of cultural divide astounds me.

 

[moraldeficiency]

All racists should be required to watch that.

Was it a show? I only know the book.

 

[kainedamo]

Nerve damage. There's your goddamned difference. You're ruining sex for these women potentially for the rest of their goddamned natural lives.

What did I get? A bigger-looking, functional penis.

When you grow a clit let me know. I'll happily mutilate it for you.

An uncut penis isn't functional?

At the end of the day, yes, female circumcision is worse. But with male circumcision you're still mutilating a child against their will and all for the sake of aesthetics.

How can that be justified?

 

[moraldeficiency]

An uncut penis isn't functional?

At the end of the day, yes, female circumcision is worse. But with male circumcision you're still mutilating a child against their will and all for the sake of aesthetics.

How can that be justified?

I believe he was saying that by cutting out the clitoris it no longer functions but by cutting out the foreskin the penis still operates normally.

It's a hygine issue for males. That was the original purpose for it, still is. For females there is no health benefits and many major risks. It's done to subjegate women, that's all.

My god, just comparing the two is crazy. I agree both are done against the will of the child but that's where the similarities end. The point of female circumcision isn't to make sex less pleasurable it's to make it hurt so they don't stray. Take the pleasure out of sex and put pain in instead for the rest of their lives, provided they don't get infected and die from this. There are zero positive health benefits for females.

Men please don't equate the two, you're just making us sound like whiney @itches. They have the same name, different function/purpose/method.

 

[kainedamo]

The male castration point has been answered several times and I've yet to hear anyone respond to those points. The points again: Hygine improves with one/vast health risks apply with the other, diminishing of sexual sensation isn't the same as destroying it, most people actually approve and are glad it was done. Cutting out the clitoris would be like cutting the head of your penis and making sure all sex for the rest of your life is painful (they're nothing alike)

There are many doctors in the west that say the improvement of hygiene with male circumcision is nothing more than a myth. Male circumcision in the west is largely an American phenomenon.

Many people in the west admit their primary reason for getting their child circumcised is either for aesthetics or for cultural reasons. What do you say to that?

You say most men that are circumcised when they are a child approve and are glad it was done.

But what about the men that don't approve?

 

[ServantofAllah]

male circumcision:

female :


kthnxbye.

 

[Strange]

My penis is pretty because of circumcision.

 

[kainedamo]

I believe he was saying that by cutting out the clitoris it no longer functions but by cutting out the foreskin the penis still operates normally.

It's a hygine issue for males. That was the original purpose for it, still is. For females there is no health benefits and many major risks. It's done to subjegate women, that's all.

See what I said about hygiene in my previous post, and see what I said about how in alot of cases hygiene isn't even the primary reason - its aesthetics or cultural. Some people do it simply because they don't want their child to be the only one in the locker room with an intact penis. Does that sound morally right to you?

My god, just comparing the two is crazy.

I think ignoring the double standards is whats crazy.

Yes, female circumcision is worse, because it takes away pleasure completely and even replaces pleasure with pain.

But there are alot of similarities, and you can't say that the following is not important.

Both are done without the consent of the child.
Both are unneccassary (depending on who you talk to, anyway. Even if there is truth to the hygiene issues of male circumcision, the hygiene benifits are so minimal it might aswell not matter, just spend an extra couple of seconds unfolding your skin to clean under there thats all).
Both cause discomfort to the child. Sure, they won't remember it. But thats kinda like saying its okay to punch your baby in the arm, 'cause when they're older they won't remember.
Both reduce sexual pleasure.
Male circumcision is done for aesthetic and cultural reasons, which I believe is utterly wrong morally. You can't chop off the skin of your baby's penis just because you think he'll look better to women naked, or just so he won't be the odd one out in the locker room.

 

[moraldeficiency]

There are many doctors in the west that say the improvement of hygiene with male circumcision is nothing more than a myth. Male circumcision in the west is largely an American phenomenon.

Many people in the west admit their primary reason for getting their child circumcised is either for aesthetics or for cultural reasons. What do you say to that?

You say most men that are circumcised when they are a child approve and are glad it was done.

But what about the men that don't approve?

Their are many people in the west that believe global warming is a myth. It started for hygine reasons the same way pork forbidden by religious text. It's not the issue it once was but I do know you can get a stink @ick if you don't take care, which is just nasty.

What's wrong with aesthetics as a reason also? If women prefer it, it's a quick easy procedure and makes you last longer during sex. These are pluses all around also. Superficial, sure, but I don't date ugly girls for silly superficial reasons also.

People are always gonna disagree with things done to them growing up. Vegans probably hate their parents once fed them meat, most kids hate having to learn to play piano (or whatever those rich kids did), some will disagree with medical decisions and many times this is legitimate. But ask yourself this, does that in anyway compare with your parents deciding to insure that sex can never be pleasurable for you again and putting you at great health risk to do it? It's like comparing a paper cut with a shotgun wound. Sure the paper cut hurts, but you'll be fine, with the other not so much.

 

[Dark Carnage]

What's wrong with aesthetics as a reason also? If women prefer it

Who cares what women prefer, it's not happening to genitals. You think women would have their clitoris' removed if men all of a sudden decided it looked better?

And it's only a preference because it's the norm.

You people can be proud you've had part of your penis removed, but the fact remains I have more nerves down there to make me happy.

 

[kainedamo]

Their are many people in the west that believe global warming is a myth.

Funnily enough, mostly American.

It started for hygine reasons the same way pork forbidden by religious text. It's not the issue it once was but I do know you can get a stink @ick if you don't take care, which is just nasty.

You can also get very greasy and stinky hair if you don't take care of it. Should everyone go bald?

What's wrong with aesthetics as a reason also?

Are you serious? We're talking about taking about a very uncomfortable procedure done to children before they are able to give consent.

If women prefer it, it's a quick easy procedure and makes you last longer during sex. These are pluses all around also. Superficial, sure, but I don't date ugly girls for silly superficial reasons also.

I watched an episode of ER where a baby girl was born with an enormous clit. So big, it looked like a penis. The parents wanted it cut off for aesthetic reasons.

We could go a step further, and give plastic surgery to ugly babies. Would you agree to that?

People are always gonna disagree with things done to them growing up. Vegans probably hate their parents once fed them meat, most kids hate having to learn to play piano (or whatever those rich kids did), some will disagree with medical decisions and many times this is legitimate. But ask yourself this, does that in anyway compare with your parents deciding to insure that sex can never be pleasurable for you again and putting you at great health risk to do it? It's like comparing a paper cut with a shotgun wound. Sure the paper cut hurts, but you'll be fine, with the other not so much.

The difference between male and female circumcision isn't as great as you make it out to be. Your own logic earlier in this post even points out your own hypocracy.

You disagree with female circumcision, even though there are alot of people that think it is necassary for religious and cultural purposes. You could probably find alot of women that have had it done that would say they were glad it was done. It can be argued that the parent knows whats best for their child.

You think male circumcision for the sole reason of aesthetics is fine.

Either both acts are right because of their own cultural reasons, or both acts are morally wrong. Which is it?

 

[moraldeficiency]

Who cares what women prefer, it's not happening to genitals. You think women would have their clitoris' removed if men all of a sudden decided it looked better?

And it's only a preference because it's the norm.

You people can be proud you've had part of your penis removed, but the fact remains I have more nerves down there to make me happy.

I agree with the first part, although what women prefer does affect at least my life considerably or anyone with a gf or wife for that matter.

Some places its the norm some it's not. I've been to a lot of places most women prefer the cut. Not all, but all people are different.

Good for you and your nerves, personally male circumcision just isn't a big deal to me on any level. It's done, I'm not crying about it, sex is still fun and I don't have to worry about stinky @ick. I'm not saying one way is superior to the other just that there are legitimate reasons for a guy to get cut, but for a girl it's severe mutilation that forever alters them on a drastic level.

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a man when I see so much male whining. Cut or not, you still enjoy sex and want to have it. Reproductive drive is still intact and the same. Human nature isn't altered in any severe level. To equate this with what happens to women on any level is just wrong.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Funnily enough, mostly American.



You can also get very greasy and stinky hair if you don't take care of it. Should everyone go bald?



Are you serious? We're talking about taking about a very uncomfortable procedure done to children before they are able to give consent.



I watched an episode of ER where a baby girl was born with an enormous clit. So big, it looked like a penis. The parents wanted it cut off for aesthetic reasons.

We could go a step further, and give plastic surgery to ugly babies. Would you agree to that?



The difference between male and female circumcision isn't as great as you make it out to be. Your own logic earlier in this post even points out your own hypocracy.

You disagree with female circumcision, even though there are alot of people that think it is necassary for religious and cultural purposes. You could probably find alot of women that have had it done that would say they were glad it was done. It can be argued that the parent knows whats best for their child.

You think male circumcision for the sole reason of aesthetics is fine.

Either both acts are right because of their own cultural reasons, or both acts are morally wrong. Which is it?

I'll repeat:

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a man when I see so much male whining. Cut or not, you still enjoy sex and want to have it. Reproductive drive is still intact and the same. Human nature isn't altered in any severe level. To equate this with what happens to women on any level is just wrong.

 

[November Rain]

The thing is that it doesn't have to be a shotgun wound.

if they can turn a penis into a vagina and the word 'mutilation' isn't used, or if they can remove a female's entire uterus without mutilation being used, then under the proper medical attention, this same operation could also be performed withouth it being related to 'mutilation'

the mutilation comes from unsafe and unsecure methods of practice.

if circumcision was outlawed, i'm sure it would be also referred to as mutilation of this sort as it wouldn't be performed with the same amount of care or precision as what is seen to day.


so should it be kept illegal or should they at least allowpeople to undergo their practices under safe and secure medical professionals.

so that's a discussion about the practicing of the procedure...

the ethics of it should be discussed completely separately.

ULtimately people from the west would condone such an act not only based on the procedure but also on the way we ultimately idolise sexual intercourse, mock vigins etc. The idea of reduced sexual stimulation being 'forced' on individuals is beyond comprehension, not to mentions if it is solely done to a singular sex is against everything the west stands for.

But for me this is pointing a finger at a cultural society which leads to many of our normal practices being put under scrutiny.

mass production, globalirisation, not to mention our own mass farming practices and techniques, sexual behaviour, drug abuse, underage pregnancy, increasing crime rates etc

but then people could say they at least have a choice.

so ultimately it comes down to the ability to have a choice but this brings me to an earlier point that how much choice does a young person have. A parent is going to act in what they believe is what is best for a child based on their own experience.

Which then perhaps comes down to educating a generation worth of people to try and 'alter their perception'. This may not change their minds in the slightest at all but maybe is will.

however if we are, we could potentially be swapping one evil for another, i.e. non mutilation with the risk of increased STD spreading, infidelity as well as other westernised practices such as factory farming, living out of harmony with our ecosystem, commercialism and pollution, then really in the big scheme of things, what has been solved?

 

[moraldeficiency]

"Infidel" by Ayaan Ali very disturbing book about what happens with female circumcisions. If you're equating it with males in any way that's just sad. It would be like equating a jewish guy being cut off in traffic with the holocaust.

Be proud of your foreskin, or angry at your parents for having it cut off but god in heaven you can still enjoy sex, speak to any woman that's had this atrocity done to them and then feel shame at even arguing this point.

 

[kainedamo]

I'll repeat:

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a man when I see so much male whining. Cut or not, you still enjoy sex and want to have it. Reproductive drive is still intact and the same. Human nature isn't altered in any severe level. To equate this with what happens to women on any level is just wrong.

No, its not.

Doing something as drastic as mutilating a baby is wrong. Always, always wrong, unless there was a legitamite medical reason.

A legitamite medical reason is NOT "if you don't wash under the skin for weeks at a time you'll get gunk build up and your penis will smell".

I'm talking a real and present life threatening medical reason.

Is the sex drive still intact? Yes.

But there is the issue of consent. You believe that rape is wrong, yes?

There are tribes that believe giving their babies ******io is right because it stops them from crying. If the baby grows up and doesn't remember, and can still function normally, according to you it doesn't matter.

You see, its not whether or not a man can still function that is the question. It is the act of the circumcision itself. It is mutilation, whether it stops his sex drive or not. It is against his will.

It is, in my opinion, equivalent to sexual abuse.

 

[moraldeficiency]

No, its not.

Doing something as drastic as mutilating a baby is wrong. Always, always wrong, unless there was a legitamite medical reason.

A legitamite medical reason is NOT "if you don't wash under the skin for weeks at a time you'll get gunk build up and your penis will smell".

I'm talking a real and present life threatening medical reason.

Is the sex drive still intact? Yes.

But there is the issue of consent. You believe that rape is wrong, yes?

There are tribes that believe giving their babies ******io is right because it stops them from crying. If the baby grows up and doesn't remember, and can still function normally, according to you it doesn't matter.

You see, its not whether or not a man can still function that is the question. It is the act of the circumcision itself. It is mutilation, whether it stops his sex drive or not. It is against his will.

It is, in my opinion, equivalent to sexual abuse.

According to me raping a baby doesn't matter? Are you insane or just saying random craziness and attributing it to me. Here's what I said about that (please note my subtle scarcasm:

"Yeah female circumcision is the same as male circumcision, no cultures are better than any other, no customs are better than others.

Does anyone here ever just get disgusted by how the disturbing contest to show how enlightened and better and accepting we can be can blind us to obvious truths?

But I guess when we don't personally have problems in our lives beyond philosophical debates then real troubles real tragedies real suffering is not even a concern except as a moral debate.

Now I'll leave this board and let you all debate that pedofiles should be allowed to rape little kids as long as it's in a different culture and how perfectly right it is for women to be stoned because it's a different culture.

Cultures are great, but they come and go. Civilizations rise and fall. End of the day, people are people and some practices are just so wrong humanity not only shouldn't allow it but should actively fight it." from an earlier post.

Now if you took this statement as me endorsing rape or saying it doesn't matter, then I don't have to respond to you anymore because you're just a random crazy person that can't read.

Cutting a bit of skin off a person isn't the same as changing the very purpose of an organ. You're against male circumcision I get it. Go protest or do what Miss Ali and actively try and stop it, I think you'll find the majority of the world just doesn't care. You do, I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, but to equate the two is just wrong on so many levels. It's like saying all crime is the same because it's illegal. Shoplifting isn't murder no matter how you moralistically reason it.

 

[kainedamo]

Shoplifting isn't murder, nonetheless it is still wrong.

Thats the point I am trying to drive home to you. Yes, female circumcision is worse. But that doesn't mean that male circumcision is anymore justifiable. The same fundamental reasons why female circumcision is wrong apply to male circumcision, all except that the purpose of female circumcision is to completely remove sexual pleasure.

I urge anyone whose immediate thought to the female circumcision problem was "this is wrong" to rethink their position on male circumcision.

"Its different 'cause we do it for aesthetic reasons on males". No. How in anyway does that even remotely make sense as a valid reason for male circumcision?

"I'm gonna give my boy the snip goes every other boy has the snip". No. Again, in no way does that make it right.

"Its okay 'cause it doesn't cause permenant harm". No. That doesn't make it okay. Punching someone in the face is still punching them in the face, even though they'll be fine in like a week.

Morally wrong is morally wrong is morally wrong. Always. No consent + unnecassary mutilation on a baby = morally wrong. 100%.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Shoplifting isn't murder, nonetheless it is still wrong.

Thats the point I am trying to drive home to you. Yes, female circumcision is worse. But that doesn't mean that male circumcision is anymore justifiable. The same fundamental reasons why female circumcision is wrong apply to male circumcision, all except that the purpose of female circumcision is to completely remove sexual pleasure.

I urge anyone whose immediate thought to the female circumcision problem was "this is wrong" to rethink their position on male circumcision.

"Its different 'cause we do it for aesthetic reasons on males". No. How in anyway does that even remotely make sense as a valid reason for male circumcision?

"I'm gonna give my boy the snip goes every other boy has the snip". No. Again, in no way does that make it right.

"Its okay 'cause it doesn't cause permenant harm". No. That doesn't make it okay. Punching someone in the face is still punching them in the face, even though they'll be fine in like a week.

Morally wrong is morally wrong is morally wrong. Always. No consent + unnecassary mutilation on a baby = morally wrong. 100%.

I agreeded with you it was still wrong. Are you willing to see that these are two vastly different wrongs though?

Moral purists always annoy me. Spend you life pointing out every injustice and wrong in the world is gonna take up all the time you could be spending doing something about it. Male circumcision needs to be looked at but female circumcision is an atrocity that needs to be stopped. I'd rather let smaller issues go to stop something horrific then pointing out how all things wrong are wrong. Pick you battles and try and fight something that's blatantly evil.

 

[Strange]

If we are talking just about male circumcision and whether it is moral or not then how do we decide that? You would have to take a poll of all men who are circumcised and if the majority are not happy with it then it would be a stopped practice. In regaurds to female circumcision I have not read any thing that states there are any females who enjoy this practice or find it moral, the only ones who probably agree with it are the women who are forced to live in that particular culture.

 

[moraldeficiency]

If we are talking just about male circumcision and whether it is moral or not then how do we decide that? You would have to take a poll of all men who are circumcised and if the majority are not happy with it then it would be a stopped practice. In regaurds to female circumcision I have not read any thing that states there are any females who enjoy this practice or find it moral, the only ones who probably agree with it are the women who are forced to live in that particular culture.

Wow that was thought out and well said. I'm suprised you haven't been banned for that.

 

[Carcharodon]

Intent is the same. Just because ppl along the centuries are come up with excuses for male circumcision to justify it doesn't take away the original intent of the procedure which is the same as female circumcision.

Read. Just read the damned article. It's not hard.

Male circumcision is not meant to curb sexual desire or sexual sensation or inflict pain. Female circumcision is. Christ. I wish people would just learn to...read.

 

[Carcharodon]

An uncut penis isn't functional?

At the end of the day, yes, female circumcision is worse. But with male circumcision you're still mutilating a child against their will and all for the sake of aesthetics.

How can that be justified?

No, my point is that my penis has remained functional, whereas female genitalia (with respect to sexual activity) are not fully functional after the procedure.

"How can that be justified?" : It looks bigger.

 

[Carcharodon]

If you read back, people have actually said that it's all right to perform oral sex on your children to get them to stop crying,

Weird... everytime I do that they cry even more...

Oh, God...

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Was it a show? I only know the book.

Yeah, mini-series on PBS based on the book.
That's what should be required since few racists could be bothered to read or understand such a book.