Should mens' genitals be sliced up?

[SpontaneousOrder]

As a number of people in this thread appear to be extremely ignorant, here's a Public Service Announcement: Female Genital Mutilation is not the same as circumcision; it's the same as having your cock chopped off.

So is the point that you're making that child abuse is ok, so long as you don't over do it?

[oracleslave]

FGM *is* more damaging - albeit far less widespread - so wouldn't it be easier to convince foreigners to stop mutilating their daughters if we aren't at the same time mutilating out sons?

ferrchristsakes - are you still comparing the two as if they are the same thing?

[SpontaneousOrder]

No reason to start saying oh woe is me I'm a bloke and its so unfair. I do like to challenge the feminists sometimes.

Unless that reason is to imply that people should be treated humanely regardless of their sex/skin colour etc?

If you suppose its bad to abuse one sex, but not another, then you're setting yourself up for a hard time convincing anyone of the morality of either. Why should someone listen to your objections when they are inherently self-contradictory?

It's like me casually boasting about stealing stationary from work, while criticising gangsters for robbing banks.

[SpontaneousOrder]

ferrchristsakes - are you still comparing the two as if they are the same thing?

You're not too bright, are you? I'd suggest that this conversation is beyond you.

Me: FGM is more damaging.
You: you still comparing the two as if they are the same thing.

Feels like groundhog day.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Illegal parking is so much more common as to make murder statistically insignificant.

Do you have a valid point to make, or are you just trying to prove that you're a ******* moron?

The point is that I'm accusing you of supporting child abuse.

[SueEllen]

The point is that I'm accusing you of supporting child abuse.

I got my ears pierced when I was a baby.

That's clearly damaging child abuse as well and so damaging...

[mudskipper]

I don't like the idea of male circumcision other than for medical reasons. If there was a move to ban it, it would have my support.

But I think it is a separate issue to FGM, and the argument against FGM is far too strong and urgent to be sidetracked.

To me, this is as if you were arguing against male circumcision, and someone comes along and says - but what about all the parents who mutilate their daughters by piercing their ears?

Different issues, and not fair to undermine one with another. Fight each on its own merits.

[SueEllen]

FGM *is* more damaging - albeit far less widespread - so wouldn't it be easier to convince foreigners to stop mutilating their daughters if we aren't at the same time mutilating out sons?

Nope.

If you tell people to stop cutting skin of their boys willies you will be called antisemitic and be given a lesson on the Holocaust if they are feeling kind or ripped to shreds otherwise.

If you explain to people and show graphic images of FGM plus the complications it causes you will find many fathers will forbid their wives from taking their daughters to have it done.

[oracleslave]

I don't like the idea of male circumcision other than for medical reasons.

Me either but as far as I know the WHO recommends it in areas of high HIV

I
But I think it is a separate issue to FGM, and the argument against FGM is far too strong and urgent to be sidetracked.

I agree. One is a seemingly outdated and in most cases unnecessary practice but typically without any long terms ramifications for the recipient and the other is far more damaging and seemingly born from a need to control a girls sexuality and psyche.

[Zero Liability]

ferrchristsakes - are you still comparing the two as if they are the same thing?

I'm failing to see where there is a difference, except in degree.

No it isn't.

Male circumcision can be done for medical reasons, FGM never is.

So what? The fact that it can, theoretically, in some cases serve that purpose does not mean in the majority of cases that it is even required to serve that end. So in terms of the damage inflicted, that is a perfectly valid analogy. In fact, it's also often done for cultural reasons.

FGM is even more dangerous regardless of who does it. It's done for cultural reasons and not related to religion. Also calling cultures backwards to excuse it doesn't help e.g. Egypt and Malaysia aren't exactly full of backwards people.

I'm not interested in excusing it.

I don't like the idea of male circumcision other than for medical reasons. If there was a move to ban it, it would have my support.

But I think it is a separate issue to FGM, and the argument against FGM is far too strong and urgent to be sidetracked.

To me, this is as if you were arguing against male circumcision, and someone comes along and says - but what about all the parents who mutilate their daughters by piercing their ears?

Different issues, and not fair to undermine one with another. Fight each on its own merits.

Well re-read the OP, that's what started this whole discussion. She isn't arguing FGM is wrong, she is making an incoherent statement regarding how males are treated vs females, and as I have pointed out in this thread it is just myopic. To be fair, it's probably just a case of attention-seeking.

I agree. One is a seemingly outdated and in most cases unnecessary practice but typically without any long terms ramifications for the recipient and the other is far more damaging and seemingly born from a need to control a girls sexuality and psyche.

It does have long term ramifications for the recipient. The difference is in degree of damage caused.