Female genital mutilation victim was 'aged just seven'

Oh great another circumcision thread. I fully expect people to not recognise the cultural origins of both practices and blame it one religion, ignore the different variations of both female and male, misrepresent medical research, ignore the basic ethical concepts involved, etc.
 
Xordium said:
Oh great another circumcision thread. I fully expect people to not recognise the cultural origins of both practices and blame it one religion, ignore the different variations of both female and male, misrepresent medical research, ignore the basic ethical concepts involved, etc.
Click to expand...

the worrying thing in this thread, is people seem to genuinely believe that female genital mutilation is the same as a male being circumcised. hmmm.
 
I don't really think that's how this thread has played out, to be honest.

The point is that cultural or religions or traditional origins of circumcision aren't relevant. However you see it, it's still mutilation.

With regards to the difference between male and female, my point is that people should have a choice, whether male of female.

What is this medical research? There are two side of the coin, apparent reduction in the chance of catching HIV, increased hygiene, some other arguments, and on the other side, desensitization, depending on who you ask, increase hygiene etc.

The main points are mutilation and choice! No discrimination.
 
cm1179 said:
the worrying thing in this thread, is people seem to genuinely believe that female genital mutilation is the same as a male being circumcised. hmmm.
Click to expand...
I don't see anybody saying it's the same.

But you can pretend as much as you like, it's still in most cases (apart from genuine medical reasons) mutilating the genitals of a child/baby without obtaining their consent - they are the same in that specific regard.

Now, they are different on the long term impact (worse for women) - potential for infection & pain/psychological damage inflicted - but the above is objectively true & a pretty key ethical factor which should not be ignored.
 
cm1179 said:
the worrying thing in this thread, is people seem to genuinely believe that female genital mutilation is the same as a male being circumcised. hmmm.
Click to expand...

Of course they don't, they have issues with both. Being a primarily male forum, it's hardly surprising that there are a lot of people more concerned about male genital mutilation, and it's far more common.
 
cm1179 said:
the worrying thing in this thread, is people seem to genuinely believe that female genital mutilation is the same as a male being circumcised. hmmm.
Click to expand...

Which was my point which is something that you don't seem to understand either there are different types of both practised in the world and some of the male types are far worse than the female types and the most common female type performed is very different from what people portray it is. Look it up if you want last time a posted links the medical articles on aboriginal male circumcision a few forum members vomited.
 
cm1179 said:
the worrying thing in this thread, is people seem to genuinely believe that female genital mutilation is the same as a male being circumcised. hmmm.
Click to expand...

I havent really seen that in this thread. Although it is a related issue and one that is more relevant to the posters of this forum. I doubt anyone in here has any experience with, or even knows of a woman who has been through it.
 
while I'm all for criticising religion - especially when it goes full-retard - FGM doesn't appear to be based on religion per say... Silly beliefs perhaps - but it does seem to be more cultural

as for male circumcision - its rather mild in comparison... personally I think it should only be done once a individual can actually make a choice to have it done or where there is a medical reason to have it done but its hardly a serious issue in comparison to the mutilation that happens to girls
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom