Genital Mutilation [Western Hypocrisy?]

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I LOVE the Holy Qur'an.

What? No one was asking if you did. He said that you aren't even addressing his points, only the "mistranslation".

I never typed that it was mistranslated. And I did.

[Vlamistaatti]

So let me get this straight, you're saying the fact that "MC could avert 2.0 (1.1−3.8 ) million new HIV infections and 0.3 (0.1−0.5) million deaths over the next ten years in sub-Saharan Africa. In the ten years after that, it could avert a further 3.7 (1.9−7.5) million new HIV infections and 2.7 (1.5−5.3) million deaths" is completely irrelevant because it requires the removal of a small amount of skin (skin which, again, has zero health benefits, and which may well cause reduced penile sensitivity) from the penis?

From http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptio ... on.html#s5
"Penile Cancer is a rare form of cancer that happens mostly to older men from age 40 and above, but most cases are in men aged 60 and over. In the UK, only 500 men are diagnosed with it each year. The rarity of this form of cancer shows when this figure is compared with 35,000 men diagnosed with prostates cancer each year(5) ! Circumcision does not prevent penile cancer. In the United States, most men with penile cancer are circumcised. However, does circumcision reduce the risk of penile cancer despite it being a very low risk cancer already? Basically, by removing a part of the penis in circumcision, a part of the penis is not there to develop cancer. This is the same as saying, by removing the liver, we eliminate liver cancer! It is obvious to a thinking person that this sort of prevention where healthy parts of the body with many functions is simply cut off is not a way to prevent a disease which has not even occurred, and moreover which has an extremely small chance of happening. Is it justified to surgically remove multi-functional foreskin of the male, and cause all the disadvantages we have identified without even the person's consent (babies)?

A recent study done by Wallerstein concluded that circumcision does not help reduce the risk of penile cancer as the rates of penile cancer in Japan, Norway and Sweden (countries with low rate of circumcision) was the same as United States' (which has a higher rate of circumcision) (6). In view of all that has been said, the 'Royal Australasian College of Physicians' and the 'American Medical Association' made a statement saying that carrying out infant circumcision with the hope of preventing penile cancer is not justified(7), with the 'American Cancer Society' also holding the same view."

http://www.aidsmap.com/Male-circumcisio ... e/1428207/
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/20 ... read-aids/
http://www.aidsmap.com/Male-circumcisio ... e/1432884/

Might as well throw these in.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I think this type of question should be categorised as a ethical question, the question is, should we be cutting a male child without his consent? whether the practice is beneficial or not.

[The Princes of the Universe]

I think this type of question should be categorised as a ethical question, the question is, should we be cutting a male child without his consent? whether the practice is beneficial or not.

The answer that would be so obvious if it were anything but penis is not unless the shit is immediately en route to hit the fan.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I think this type of question should be categorised as a ethical question, the question is, should we be cutting a male child without his consent? whether the practice is beneficial or not.

The answer that would be so obvious if it were anything but penis is not unless the shit is immediately en route to hit the fan.

Your entire sentence was incoherent, could you possibly rephrase.

[The Princes of the Universe]

The answer that would be so obvious if it were anything but penis is not unless the shit is immediately en route to hit the fan.

Your entire sentence was incoherent, could you possibly rephrase.

If it isn't causing a problem right here and now, leave it the hell alone. Everyone would be on board with that, except we're talking about penis, which is somehow exempt from all ethics.

[Minzerland II]

I don't think Genital mutilation should be conducted without the consent of the reciever, thereby only being available at a later stage (during or after puberty, perhaps?). This includes FGM and MGM.

[Camicon]

Standard info dump... incoming...

---

The number of births in the USA in 2014 was 3,988,076. Circumcision causes 117 neonatal deaths in the USA every year. Assuming that all newborns are male, and that all newborns are circumcised, that's 1 death for every 34086 newborns. Again, assuming all newborns are male, and assuming all newborns are circumcised, 1 in 34000 will be killed by circumcision.

Adjusting for the actual percentages of male/female births (1.05/1), and circumcised/uncircumcised newborns (.547/.453), there is approximately 1 neonatal death for every 10255 circumcisions. Nearly ten times higher than the penile cancer diagnosis rate, which is roughly 1 for every 100,000 men in the USA.

This is the report that most people use to justify their stance on circumcision and the benefits it provides regarding STI prevention. This study is in no way generalizable. Sub-Saharan Africa is not comparable to the USA, or any other developed nation: they lack the same infrastructure, education about health and cleanliness, education about STI's and STI prevention. Not only that, but the study looked specifically at HIV prevention, not STI prevention.

Circumcision is, in almost all cases, an unnecessary and potentially deadly medical procedure. It provides no benefits which cannot be replicated by a five-second application of clean water. Not to mention, it is a gross violation of bodily sovereignty.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Standard info dump... incoming...

---

The number of births in the USA in 2014 was 3,988,076. Circumcision causes 117 neonatal deaths in the USA every year. Assuming that all newborns are male, and that all newborns are circumcised, that's 1 death for every 34086 newborns. Again, assuming all newborns are male, and assuming all newborns are circumcised, 1 in 34000 will be killed by circumcision.

Adjusting for the actual percentages of male/female births (1.05/1), and circumcised/uncircumcised newborns (.547/.453), there is approximately 1 neonatal death for every 10255 circumcisions. Nearly ten times higher than the penile cancer diagnosis rate, which is roughly 1 for every 100,000 men in the USA.

This is the report that most people use to justify their stance on circumcision and the benefits it provides regarding STI prevention. This study is in no way generalizable. Sub-Saharan Africa is not comparable to the USA, or any other developed nation: they lack the same infrastructure, education about health and cleanliness, education about STI's and STI prevention. Not only that, but the study looked specifically at HIV prevention, not STI prevention.

Circumcision is, in almost all cases, an unnecessary and potentially deadly medical procedure. It provides no benefits which cannot be replicated by a five-second application of clean water. Not to mention, it is a gross violation of bodily sovereignty.

^I agree.

[Kravanica]

I don't find removing a useless flap of dick skin to be as serious, no.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I don't find removing a useless flap of dick skin to be as serious, no.

It's very useful.

[Camicon]

I don't find removing a useless flap of dick skin to be as serious, no.

It's not useless, nor is it any less serious than certain kinds of FGM, such as Type 1a and some forms of Type IV.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

I don't find removing a useless flap of dick skin to be as serious, no.

The question of whether Male circumcision is just as bad is not in question, we've already established that Male circumcision is no where as sevre as Female circumcision, however, the question is more of a ethical one, Should we violate their bodily sovereignty?

[Camicon]

I don't find removing a useless flap of dick skin to be as serious, no.

The question of whether Male circumcision is just as bad is not in question, we've already established that Male circumcision is no where as sevre as Female circumcision, however, the question is more of a ethical one, Should we violate their bodily sovereignty?

Certain types of FGM. Type 1a, removal of the clitoral hood, is equivalent to removal of the foreskin. Certain symbolic circumcisions are grouped under Type IV, with more serious procedures such as gishiri cutting.

Whether or not male circumcision is more harmful than female circumcision is, at the end of the day, a false comparison. Whether or not it is harmful as compared to another harmful, similar procedure should not be the metric by which we determine it's worth. The facts lay things out pretty clearly: for children being born into core/developed/"First World" states, circumcision does more harm than good. By that basis alone it should be a procedure only ever performed when there is an acute medical condition requiring it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Removal of the male foreskin is not equivalent to the practice of female-genital mutiliation, which routinely involves the amputation of the clitoris, as well as the removal of the labia, and can also include the sewing shut of the vulva entirely. This is not practiced in medically safe conditions, whereas western male circumcision is usually done medically.

Both in terms of the effects on the subject as well as the risks, male circumcision is much less severe. I'm circumcised, and it causes me no discomforts no prevents me from achieving sexual release to any discernible degree. Female genital mutilation is designed prevent women from feeling pleasure from sex at all, and to make the act of intercourse uncomfortable and painful.

I think child circumcision should be banned as medically unnecessary potentially harmful. But don't pretend that the two are the same, because they're not.

Female Genital Mutilation: Disables a woman from having sexual pleasure by removing her clitoris or entirely removes her ability to have sex/get pregnant, depending on the type.
Circumcision (Male Genital "Mutilation"): Oh boo hoo, it kills some nerve endings and gives you a .003% higher chance of getting AIDs

Clearly, reality has a double standard and is a Misandrist.


Good job listing Google and Wikipedia as your sources lmao.

Circumcision /=/ MGM.

Male Genital Mutilation is in many cases more severe than FGM.

The severe forms of MGM are banned in the west. (Castration, for instance.)
All forms of FGM are banned in the west.
That IS hypocrisy.

If you want to compare circumcision to the female equivalent, it would be "Other Harmful Proceedures." (Or perhaps, type 3.)

Types of FGM:
Type 1 (clitoridectomy) – removing part or all of the clitoris.
Type 2 (excision) – removing part or all of the clitoris and the inner labia (lips that surround the vagina), with or without removal of the labia majora (larger outer lips).
Type 3 (infibulation) – narrowing of the vaginal opening by creating a seal, formed by cutting and repositioning the labia.
Other harmful procedures to the female genitals, including pricking, piercing, cutting, scraping or burning the area.

What you are doing is comparing Type 1 FGM to The MGM "Other harmful."
It's like me up and deciding to say FGM is not comparable to MGM because a "Pin prick is barely anything compared to castration."

Yet the overwhelmingly most common forms of FGM are pricks to remove blood, or nicks of the skin.

You do this because it's a feminist talking point, and as usual, their spokespeople managed to fuck it up as soon as it came to mens issues and set us back on it. Or rather, they manage to have overhyped a womens issue by pretending FGM is far, far worse than it actually is, then act indignant when you compare a mens issue to it.

For comparison, a list of MGM routines:

Type I – excision or injury of part or all of the skin and specialized mucosal tissues of the penis including the prepuce and frenulum (circumcision, dorsal slit without closure).
Type II – excision or injury to the glans (glandectomy) and/or penis shaft, (penectomy) along with Type I MGM. Any procedure that interferes with reproductive or sexual function in the adult male.
Type III – excision or destruction of the testes (castration, orchidectomy) with or without Type II MGM.
Type IV – unclassified: includes pricking, piercing or incision of the prepuce, glans, scrotum or other genital tissue; cutting and suturing of the prepuce over the glans (infibulation); slitting open the urethra along the ventral surface of the penis (sub-incision); slitting open the foreskin along its dorsal surface (super-incision); severing the frenulum; stripping the skin from the shaft of the penis; introducing corrosive or scalding substances onto the genital area; any other procedure which falls under the definition of MGM given above.



In what sense are these not equivalent, and why are you pretending they aren't?
Why do so many feminists pretend they aren't?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Removal of the male foreskin is not equivalent to the practice of female-genital mutiliation, which routinely involves the amputation of the clitoris, as well as the removal of the labia, and can also include the sewing shut of the vulva entirely. This is not practiced in medically safe conditions, whereas western male circumcision is usually done medically.

Both in terms of the effects on the subject as well as the risks, male circumcision is much less severe. I'm circumcised, and it causes me no discomforts no prevents me from achieving sexual release to any discernible degree. Female genital mutilation is designed prevent women from feeling pleasure from sex at all, and to make the act of intercourse uncomfortable and painful.

I think child circumcision should be banned as medically unnecessary potentially harmful. But don't pretend that the two are the same, because they're not.

Female Genital Mutilation: Disables a woman from having sexual pleasure by removing her clitoris or entirely removes her ability to have sex/get pregnant, depending on the type.
Circumcision (Male Genital "Mutilation"): Oh boo hoo, it kills some nerve endings and gives you a .003% higher chance of getting AIDs

Clearly, reality has a double standard and is a Misandrist.


Good job listing Google and Wikipedia as your sources lmao.

Circumcision /=/ MGM.

Male Genital Mutilation is in many cases more severe than FGM.

The severe forms of MGM are banned in the west. (Castration, for instance.)
All forms of FGM are banned in the west.
That IS hypocrisy.

If you want to compare circumcision to the female equivalent, it would be "Other Harmful Proceedures."

Types of FGM:
Type 1 (clitoridectomy) – removing part or all of the clitoris.
Type 2 (excision) – removing part or all of the clitoris and the inner labia (lips that surround the vagina), with or without removal of the labia majora (larger outer lips).
Type 3 (infibulation) – narrowing of the vaginal opening by creating a seal, formed by cutting and repositioning the labia.
Other harmful procedures to the female genitals, including pricking, piercing, cutting, scraping or burning the area.

What you are doing is comparing Type 1 FGM to The MGM "Other harmful."
It's like me up and deciding to say FGM is not comparable to MGM because a "Pin prick is barely anything compared to castration."

Yet the overwhelmingly most common forms of FGM are pricks to remove blood, or nicks of the skin.

You do this because it's a feminist talking point, and as usual, their spokespeople managed to fuck it up as soon as it came to mens issues and set us back on it. Or rather, they manage to have overhyped a womens issue by pretending FGM is far, far worse than it actually is, then act indignant when you compare a mens issue to it.

...I agree it's hypocrisy to create a false equivalence and use it to delegitimize something. I used to think circumcision was the worst MGM and wanted it banned. I'm not sure where to go from this, though.

[Ostroeuropa]

Circumcision /=/ MGM.

Male Genital Mutilation is in many cases more severe than FGM.

The severe forms of MGM are banned in the west. (Castration, for instance.)
All forms of FGM are banned in the west.
That IS hypocrisy.

If you want to compare circumcision to the female equivalent, it would be "Other Harmful Proceedures."

Types of FGM:
Type 1 (clitoridectomy) – removing part or all of the clitoris.
Type 2 (excision) – removing part or all of the clitoris and the inner labia (lips that surround the vagina), with or without removal of the labia majora (larger outer lips).
Type 3 (infibulation) – narrowing of the vaginal opening by creating a seal, formed by cutting and repositioning the labia.
Other harmful procedures to the female genitals, including pricking, piercing, cutting, scraping or burning the area.

What you are doing is comparing Type 1 FGM to The MGM "Other harmful."
It's like me up and deciding to say FGM is not comparable to MGM because a "Pin prick is barely anything compared to castration."

Yet the overwhelmingly most common forms of FGM are pricks to remove blood, or nicks of the skin.

You do this because it's a feminist talking point, and as usual, their spokespeople managed to fuck it up as soon as it came to mens issues and set us back on it. Or rather, they manage to have overhyped a womens issue by pretending FGM is far, far worse than it actually is, then act indignant when you compare a mens issue to it.

...I agree it's hypocrisy to create a false equivalence and use it to delegitimize something. I used to think circumcision was the worst MGM and wanted it banned. I'm not sure where to go from this, though.

The deceit is twofold.
First, feminist institutions pushed the idea that FGM is often type 1 or type 2 FGM, when it's overwhelmingly more common to be type 3. Second, they pretend all MGM is circumcision and perpetuate that idea whenever the topic arises.
I don't think it's as simple as hypocrisy. In many cases it's apparently these peoples jobs to study gender equality.
It's either extreme incompetence or willful deceit and sexism, either of which is sufficient to write off feminism as a viable movement for mens issues to be addressed.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

...I agree it's hypocrisy to create a false equivalence and use it to delegitimize something. I used to think circumcision was the worst MGM and wanted it banned. I'm not sure where to go from this, though.

The deceit is twofold.
First, feminist institutions pushed the idea that FGM is often type 1 or type 2 FGM, when it's overwhelmingly more common to be type 3. Second, they pretend all MGM is circumcision and perpetuate that idea whenever the topic arises.
I don't think it's as simple as hypocrisy. In many cases it's apparently these peoples jobs to study gender equality.
It's either extreme incompetence or willful deceit and sexism, either of which is sufficient to write off feminism as a viable movement for mens issues to be addressed.

That's quite the deceit. So they upped the ante and then manipulated the circumstances? That's either the result of ignorance or overt manipulation. If that's how feminists have gone about it, I don't blame alternate movements' having sprung up.

[Nickel Empire]

I don't find removing a useless flap of dick skin to be as serious, no.

^This.

[Zudril]

I don't find removing a useless flap of dick skin to be as serious, no.

^This.

This attitude more or less show complete ignorance of what purpose it serves.

[Crockerland]

Removal of the male foreskin is not equivalent to the practice of female-genital mutiliation, which routinely involves the amputation of the clitoris, as well as the removal of the labia, and can also include the sewing shut of the vulva entirely. This is not practiced in medically safe conditions, whereas western male circumcision is usually done medically.

Both in terms of the effects on the subject as well as the risks, male circumcision is much less severe. I'm circumcised, and it causes me no discomforts no prevents me from achieving sexual release to any discernible degree. Female genital mutilation is designed prevent women from feeling pleasure from sex at all, and to make the act of intercourse uncomfortable and painful.

I think child circumcision should be banned as medically unnecessary potentially harmful. But don't pretend that the two are the same, because they're not.

Female Genital Mutilation: Disables a woman from having sexual pleasure by removing her clitoris or entirely removes her ability to have sex/get pregnant, depending on the type.
Circumcision (Male Genital "Mutilation"): Oh boo hoo, it kills some nerve endings and gives you a .003% higher chance of getting AIDs

Clearly, reality has a double standard and is a Misandrist.


Good job listing Google and Wikipedia as your sources lmao.

Circumcision /=/ MGM.

Male Genital Mutilation is in many cases more severe than FGM.

The severe forms of MGM are banned in the west. (Castration, for instance.)
All forms of FGM are banned in the west.
That IS hypocrisy.

If you want to compare circumcision to the female equivalent, it would be "Other Harmful Proceedures." (Or perhaps, type 3.)

Types of FGM:
Type 1 (clitoridectomy) – removing part or all of the clitoris.
Type 2 (excision) – removing part or all of the clitoris and the inner labia (lips that surround the vagina), with or without removal of the labia majora (larger outer lips).
Type 3 (infibulation) – narrowing of the vaginal opening by creating a seal, formed by cutting and repositioning the labia.
Other harmful procedures to the female genitals, including pricking, piercing, cutting, scraping or burning the area.

What you are doing is comparing Type 1 FGM to The MGM "Other harmful."
It's like me up and deciding to say FGM is not comparable to MGM because a "Pin prick is barely anything compared to castration."

Yet the overwhelmingly most common forms of FGM are pricks to remove blood, or nicks of the skin.

You do this because it's a feminist talking point, and as usual, their spokespeople managed to fuck it up as soon as it came to mens issues and set us back on it. Or rather, they manage to have overhyped a womens issue by pretending FGM is far, far worse than it actually is, then act indignant when you compare a mens issue to it.

For comparison, a list of MGM routines:

Type I – excision or injury of part or all of the skin and specialized mucosal tissues of the penis including the prepuce and frenulum (circumcision, dorsal slit without closure).
Type II – excision or injury to the glans (glandectomy) and/or penis shaft, (penectomy) along with Type I MGM. Any procedure that interferes with reproductive or sexual function in the adult male.
Type III – excision or destruction of the testes (castration, orchidectomy) with or without Type II MGM.
Type IV – unclassified: includes pricking, piercing or incision of the prepuce, glans, scrotum or other genital tissue; cutting and suturing of the prepuce over the glans (infibulation); slitting open the urethra along the ventral surface of the penis (sub-incision); slitting open the foreskin along its dorsal surface (super-incision); severing the frenulum; stripping the skin from the shaft of the penis; introducing corrosive or scalding substances onto the genital area; any other procedure which falls under the definition of MGM given above.



In what sense are these not equivalent, and why are you pretending they aren't?
Why do so many feminists pretend they aren't?

Can you name one society where male genital mutilation besides circumcision is an actual, prevalent, common practice?

[Costa Fierro]

Circumcision /=/ MGM.

Male Genital Mutilation is in many cases more severe than FGM.

The severe forms of MGM are banned in the west. (Castration, for instance.)
All forms of FGM are banned in the west.
That IS hypocrisy.

If you want to compare circumcision to the female equivalent, it would be "Other Harmful Proceedures." (Or perhaps, type 3.)

Types of FGM:
Type 1 (clitoridectomy) – removing part or all of the clitoris.
Type 2 (excision) – removing part or all of the clitoris and the inner labia (lips that surround the vagina), with or without removal of the labia majora (larger outer lips).
Type 3 (infibulation) – narrowing of the vaginal opening by creating a seal, formed by cutting and repositioning the labia.
Other harmful procedures to the female genitals, including pricking, piercing, cutting, scraping or burning the area.

What you are doing is comparing Type 1 FGM to The MGM "Other harmful."
It's like me up and deciding to say FGM is not comparable to MGM because a "Pin prick is barely anything compared to castration."

Yet the overwhelmingly most common forms of FGM are pricks to remove blood, or nicks of the skin.

You do this because it's a feminist talking point, and as usual, their spokespeople managed to fuck it up as soon as it came to mens issues and set us back on it. Or rather, they manage to have overhyped a womens issue by pretending FGM is far, far worse than it actually is, then act indignant when you compare a mens issue to it.

For comparison, a list of MGM routines:

Type I – excision or injury of part or all of the skin and specialized mucosal tissues of the penis including the prepuce and frenulum (circumcision, dorsal slit without closure).
Type II – excision or injury to the glans (glandectomy) and/or penis shaft, (penectomy) along with Type I MGM. Any procedure that interferes with reproductive or sexual function in the adult male.
Type III – excision or destruction of the testes (castration, orchidectomy) with or without Type II MGM.
Type IV – unclassified: includes pricking, piercing or incision of the prepuce, glans, scrotum or other genital tissue; cutting and suturing of the prepuce over the glans (infibulation); slitting open the urethra along the ventral surface of the penis (sub-incision); slitting open the foreskin along its dorsal surface (super-incision); severing the frenulum; stripping the skin from the shaft of the penis; introducing corrosive or scalding substances onto the genital area; any other procedure which falls under the definition of MGM given above.



In what sense are these not equivalent, and why are you pretending they aren't?
Why do so many feminists pretend they aren't?

Can you name one society where male genital mutilation besides circumcision is an actual, prevalent, common practice?

Although called a circumcision, the cultural practices in this tribe often result in mutilated genitalia or complete amputations. I'd link the penile subincision Wikipedia entry but PG-13 says otherwise.

[Neanderthaland]

I'm of the opinion that, when it comes to your children's bodies, you should generally try to avoid cutting off anything that doesn't grow back.

[USS Monitor]

I cringe when I bring this up and women say: "But it looks better".
They're kids.

I don't think everyone even agrees which way looks better. It's probably a matter of what you're used to.

[Implacable Death]

Circumcision can have medical reasons.