-
The only people that oppose genital mutilation are those who dont have the balls, or whose parents didnt have the balls to do it and are jealous and bitter about the disgusting piece of skin confining their penis and want to force the inconveniance, of having to use your hands to piss, on everyone else.
Nope, I'm not mutilated, and proud. Sounds like you are the bitter one to me. That's textbook bitterness right there.
-
This is exactly what I meant about cultural relativism above. We assume so easily that what those African tribes do is SO different to what we do. Why? Well, we're civilised, aren't we? And those Africans, well, they're misogynists - dirty, uncivilised misogynists.
You're ignoring the fact that it's often us that have to shell out for very expensive antiretroviral drugs to help these people. It's us that send millions of pounds in aid to fight HIV on the continent. This aid increases year on year.
Bullshit. I say again: bullshit. Female Genital Mutilation can be one of four different levels. The first few are no different to male circumcision - it's why before FGM was the preferred nomenclature, the phrase Female Circumcision was interchangable,even to the point where the WHO were using it (incorrectly).
The moral justification is identical. Don't believe me? Ask yourself the question: what is the point at which female genital mutilation becomes wrong? Is it the level at which women have the skin around their clitorises removed (i.e. an actual female circumcision - circum meaning around, and cision meaning cut - identical to male circumcision and equally adept at removing sexual sensitivity)? Is it the point at which the labia are removed? is it the point at which the clitoris is removed? Or where the labia are sewn?
The moral justification is in no way identical. Ask yourselves why power-wielding men in misogynist, paternal societies would deliberately subject themselves to mutilation. It doesn't make any sense. The only reason FGM exists in these places is control. It's a similar thought process to why some men force their wives to cover their entire bodies in public. Its' men who don't want their women to feel pleasure from sex, because they're shitscared they might sleep around. They remove the clitoris because they don't want them to orgasm. They believe the role of women in sex should be solely directed at making babies, there should be no pleasure involved, the only pleasure should be for the male.
How is this in any way similar to male circumcision. Male circumcision is done largely due to tradition, religion, cleanliness, and also probably a lot to do with the boy's father having it done himself. Fathers want to see themselves in their sons. There is no/little reduction in sensitivity, and has no effect on pleasure.
It might not have fucked you up; you were one of the lucky ones. Doesn't make it right to do that shit to any children ever again.
Nah, it hasn't fucked me up. I was pretty indifferent to it, until I learnt that being circumcised significantly reduced the chance of contracting STDs. Now I see it in a more positive light and i'm glad it was done.
-
Well i was circumcised for medical reasons (as a young child, i didnt consent), pissing in my own eyes etc - and the only problem i have with circumcision are the militant do gooders telling me im mentally scarred, bitter and that i should be ashamed of my disgusting mutilated cock.
+1
-
no , you can fork off
-
The argument that if you keep it clean, everything is fine, doesn't really work in the real world. You are most likely to get HIV a few hours after sex. The foreskin harbours the virus, and then it enters the bloodstream. If you have no foreskin, the virus has no place to stay. Unless you are going to thoroughly wash yourself directly after unprotected sex, every single time, then you're better of being circumcised.
And yes, condoms are obviously much more effectively in reducing any infection, but men don't always use condoms, especially in developing countries where sex is more for procreation and less for pleasure.
-
I am not saying that people who have had their foreskin removed for medical reasons are mutilated, only those who have it removed at birth for no good reason.
In the same way that (extreme, perhaps) the removal of an arm for instance would be considered mutilation, unless it was for some genuine medical reason. If there is a medical reason, and it is a real medical reason, like trying to have sex with your stem, then chop it off. If it is a baby, and you want to chop it off because daddy had his cut off, or because your fucking sky pixie said you should do it, then that is mutilation and should be illegal.
Docking a tail on a dog is illegal. Tails used to be docked because it looked good, and because tails are easily damaged on hunting dogs. Tails can be docked if it is medically required, however, docking for any other reason is illegal.
-
The argument that if you keep it clean, everything is fine, doesn't really work in the real world. You are most likely to get HIV a few hours after sex.
No one said you can wash HIV off!
Anyway I think your argument seems like damage limitation and not actually takling the problem.
As I mentioned, the reason there's an HIV epidemic in south africa is down to lack of education, mis information, denial, and lack of protection. In this extreme case circumcision at birth might be viable, but it is a very specific situation.
It doesn't justify cicumcision at birth in the west. So why do we have it.
-
But LPG, can you not see the long term consequence of what you're advocating?
If you're saying that, in the developing world, where men have control over society, and sex, they can perceive that circumcision has a beneficial effect on the transmission of STIs*? And that by getting the chop, they are less likely to be infected.
Ask yourself what this does to a mindset. Doesn't this lead to more unprotected sex, as men will consider that there's less personal harm / risk? And ignore the consequences to their partner?
STI transmission rates vary in men and women. I don't think I need to point out the reasons for this. Widespread circumcision programmes were once advocated by the WHO. They're not anymore. Education and awareness raising is a better way of tackling STI transmission, along with condom distribution.
What you advocate takes responsibility away from men and perpetuates the norm.
I won't address your 'we're paying for it all anyway' bit, cos frankly iI can't be arsed. Plus the whole other argument people have made about commerce in medicine - go to Africa, to an HIV Hospice, and see ARV trials and how they operate and then come back to us.
- and sorry to be a pedant, but it's the TLA STIs, not STDs that's used nowadays, as it covers the true range of symptoms / conditions that can be transferred by genital contact.
- and sorry to be a pedant, but it's the TLA STIs, not STDs that's used nowadays, as it covers the true range of symptoms / conditions that can be transferred by genital contact.
-
MC_Neberchopmetipoff
-
Well i was circumcised for medical reasons (as a young child, i didnt consent), pissing in my own eyes etc - and the only problem i have with circumcision are the militant do gooders telling me im mentally scarred, bitter and that i should be ashamed of my disgusting mutilated cock.
+2
Ive heard "are you enjoying your mutilated cawk" way more times than "you should get circumcised".
Mc_Nebula
neu
Salmo
hoonz
lpg
Balki
dooks
ChainBreaker
big_daddy_wayne
snowy_again
Rosmal-
Post a reply
About
The thread for circumcised gentiles
Posted by
@jaw
The fact still remains that the only people who will say that it is a good thing, are those who have had it done. Sure, if at the age of 18, when you are legally an adult you want to cut the end of your knob off, then be my guest and go ahead with it. However, to mutilate a baby is sick and wrong.
Obv. if there is a genuine medical reason why it should be done at birth due to some malformation or whatever, that is acceptable. OTherwise, tradition,"normal" religion? no. illegal.
As for the reduction in AIDS, to me that seems like them saying less circumsised people have aids, thus aids is less common in circumsised people. It is true by definition. less x are y, therefore y is less common in x. Seems like the same assumption to me...