Off Topic Circumcision

Is it child genital mutilation or not? Why is it any different from Female genital mutilation?

 

FGM has longterm detrimental affects, serious ones, have you googled what it involves? Cutting off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina, it doesn't come close to male circumcision.

I don't condone male circumcision though, even if it is "tradition", not least because it imposes a permanent religious act on a child without his consent + can have complications, but the same as FGM? no.

 

Of course it is. It is no different to FGM.

If there are problems that require circumcision to fix them e.g. phimosis, then by all means, go for it.

If it's for "tradition" or "religious reasons" then **** no. Until the child is old enough to decide for themselves if they want their genitals mutilated.

 

It's a lot to do with magnetic flux pathways..

 

Yeah FGM is pretty gruesome though so is circumcision, you mention cutting off the clitoris, doesn't circumcision remove some of the sensitive skin on the penis too which is pretty much the same thing?

Though the sewing up is another step, ****ing medieval **** right there.

So is FGM religious or what?

 

yea supposedly amongst some ****ing weird Christian sects in Africa.
I guess cutting off the clitoris means never being able to orgasm, seems pretty severe and is irreversable.

Reduced sensitivity is slightly less severe, but then I'm not condoning male circumcision either unless it's for a completely necessary medical procedure or the guy has consented (over 16).

 

I agree with this, I see no difference between the two in terms of curring up genitals to serve religious or cultural beliefs. Obviously there are medical circumstances as you mention that may require it but they would be rare.

 

Having no foreskin to cover the head is pretty permanent mate, not directly comparing the mutilations here, just I guess looking at how they are perceived, grading how bad each is may be somewhat pointless as they both involve unnessessary carving up of a baby's genitals for ridiculous reasons. Barbaric.

I note a lot of media tried ot tie FGM to Muslims, but the numbers are 70%+ in African Christain states.

 

FGM intentionally causes injury, circumcision is a medical necessity unless it's ritual.

 

When is circumcission a medical necessity? Having say a pinhole in the foreskin of a baby that is too small to detract the foreskin can be resolved with minor surgery or even stretching of the skin, no circumcission is required. Granted there may be rare circumstances that requre it. But that is not the case, and if not medical it is MGM

FGM is not actually carried out to intentionally cause injury though is it, it is carried out because of beliefs, just like circumcision.

 

male circumcision substantially reduces the risk of contracting AIDS and other sex related beasties.

FGM is just torture.

Comparing the 2 is ludicrous, they're nothing alike.

 

Male Circumcision is Jews and Africans tradition. Some African countries took it too far and brought in female circumcision:
mainly to prevent their women from being promiscuous. A circumcised female is unlikely to enjoy sex.

 

The NHS site says about 2% of infant boys are circumcised for medical reasons. The NHS doesn't fund non-medical procedures but in Scotland they will do it if approached to stop non surgeons performing the procedure.

FGM does intentionally cause injury as there is never any medical reason to do it. The psychological differences between male and female procedures are huge.

 

I thought this was going to be a jokey thread butt got serious pretty quick!

just wait for RHC to pop up (excuse the pun)

 

I've not had the snip in case you all wanted to know

 

Getting some kicks?.

 

Or just wear a ****ing condom.

They're exactly alike. Both involve pointless destruction of incredibly sensitive parts of the body for nothing more than bullshit ritual and/or religion.

 

Circumcision and the barbaric levels that extreme female genital mutilations can go to, aren't in the same stratosphere.

You can argue that the former shouldn't be carried out as ritual on babies, but left to the choice of a consenting adult, however comparing the 2 is daft.


Plus you don't need to be Einstein to see where this is headed, so I'm out.

 

Its the same as FGM in the sense that they are both Genital mutilation, just differing degrees of it I suppose.
But both are barbaric, and forcing a child to have his genitals mutilated, to any extent because of YOUR religious or cultural beliefs, should be outlawed.
When the kid is 18, if he decides he can do without his foreskin and willingly decides to have it done, then fair enough (at his own expense too of course, I dont want my tax money spent on a pointless religious exercise)

 

way too many innuendo puns on this topic