Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Gim]

Not necessarily. A grown-up or a teenager can consent to it.

A baby cannot,This is what I mean.Otherwise not allowed at birth.

Oh, just babies. Yeah, I don't object to that.

[Italios]

Circumcision should be banned,It's mutilation without consent.

Mutilation, as defined by the dictionary:

the infliction of serious damage on something.

Circumcision does not usually do serious damage (I imagine it can, if inproperly done). It's actually rather beneficial, but it's up to you to get it. I'm sure if someone got it at such a young age that they couldn't consent they wouldn't be complaining.

[Gim]

Circumcision should be banned,It's mutilation without consent.

Mutilation, as defined by the dictionary:

the infliction of serious damage on something.

Circumcision does not usually do serious damage (I imagine it can, if inproperly done). It's actually rather beneficial, but it's up to you to get it. I'm sure if someone got it at such a young age that they couldn't consent they wouldn't be complaining.

I think he was equating circumcision with FGM(female genital mutilation), thus considering circumcision equals mutilation.

[Italios]

Mutilation, as defined by the dictionary:


Circumcision does not usually do serious damage (I imagine it can, if inproperly done). It's actually rather beneficial, but it's up to you to get it. I'm sure if someone got it at such a young age that they couldn't consent they wouldn't be complaining.

I think he was equating circumcision with FGM(female genital mutilation), thus considering circumcision equals mutilation.

Oh. I see. Yeah, I don't support female circumsion, but males should have the choice to get it. Bith my brothers were at a young age without giving their consent and they're not complaining.

[Eisarn-Ara]

Hey, if clipping a clit is awful, don' clip a dick. Simple as that.

[Gim]

Hey, if clipping a clit is awful, don' clip a dick. Simple as that.

Well, circumcising the female genital has more complications than doing the same on the male genital.

[Camicon]

Hey, if clipping a clit is awful, don' clip a dick. Simple as that.

Well, circumcising the female genital has more complications than doing the same on the male genital.

Only because of the conditions it's commonly done it. There's nothing inherently more complicated or dangerous about cutting a vagina than there is cutting a penis, so far as I know.

[Gim]

Well, circumcising the female genital has more complications than doing the same on the male genital.

Only because of the conditions it's commonly done it. There's nothing inherently more complicated or dangerous about cutting a vagina than there is cutting a penis, so far as I know.

Oh, that's good. Females do not get to suffer, even if they are circumcised, not that I wholeheartedly support circumcision.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Hey, if clipping a clit is awful, don' clip a dick. Simple as that.

So not comparable...

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Well, circumcising the female genital has more complications than doing the same on the male genital.

Only because of the conditions it's commonly done it. There's nothing inherently more complicated or dangerous about cutting a vagina than there is cutting a penis, so far as I know.

No Camicon, that is not true. It is not just the conditions FGM is done in, the procedures aren't comparable to the removal of foreskin. Not by a long shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ge ... Typologies

[Camicon]

Only because of the conditions it's commonly done it. There's nothing inherently more complicated or dangerous about cutting a vagina than there is cutting a penis, so far as I know.

No Camicon, that is not true. It is not just the conditions FGM is done in, the procedures aren't comparable to the removal of foreskin. Not by a long shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ge ... Typologies

You should re-read my post, and then think about revising your own.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

No Camicon, that is not true. It is not just the conditions FGM is done in, the procedures aren't comparable to the removal of foreskin. Not by a long shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ge ... Typologies

You should re-read my post, and then think about revising your own.

I read your post and I am telling that yes, FGM is more dangerous and complicated that foreskin removal, not only because of the conditions it is done in but also because of what is done to the female genitalia. Particularly type III. And I'm telling you this because by your own admission, you don't seem to know much about the subject of FGM.

Is circumcision mutilation? Yes. Is it comparable to FGM? No.

[Divitaen]

You should re-read my post, and then think about revising your own.

I read your post and I am telling that yes, FGM is more dangerous and complicated that foreskin removal, not only because of the conditions it is done in but also because of what is done to the female genitalia. Particularly type III. And I'm telling you this because by your own admission, you don't seem to know much about the subject of FGM.

Is circumcision mutilation? Yes. Is it comparable to FGM? No.

I think it is comparable though, cos health hazards aside, the fundamental basis for opposing FGM is still that the process behind it violates medical ethics and forces mutilation on a non-consenting infant, and in that sense it is comparable.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I read your post and I am telling that yes, FGM is more dangerous and complicated that foreskin removal, not only because of the conditions it is done in but also because of what is done to the female genitalia. Particularly type III. And I'm telling you this because by your own admission, you don't seem to know much about the subject of FGM.

Is circumcision mutilation? Yes. Is it comparable to FGM? No.

I think it is comparable though, cos health hazards aside, the fundamental basis for opposing FGM is still that the process behind it violates medical ethics and forces mutilation on a non-consenting infant, and in that sense it is comparable.

FGM is not performed on infant girls, though. It is performed on girls in and around 9 years of age and up.

[Divitaen]

I think it is comparable though, cos health hazards aside, the fundamental basis for opposing FGM is still that the process behind it violates medical ethics and forces mutilation on a non-consenting infant, and in that sense it is comparable.

FGM is not performed on infant girls, though. It is performed on girls in and around 9 years of age and up.

Ok fair enough but what I meant was an individual too young to register consent.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

FGM is not performed on infant girls, though. It is performed on girls in and around 9 years of age and up.

Ok fair enough but what I meant was an individual too young to register consent.

There's an argument for that, yes. Usually, both procedures are performed on minors who cannot really give informed consent.

I've said it before, they're both mutilations. However, because of the life long problems females who are circumcised experience, I would say that FGM is worse than male circumcision.

[Camicon]

You should re-read my post, and then think about revising your own.

I read your post and I am telling that yes, FGM is more dangerous and complicated that foreskin removal, not only because of the conditions it is done in but also because of what is done to the female genitalia. Particularly type III. And I'm telling you this because by your own admission, you don't seem to know much about the subject of FGM.

Is circumcision mutilation? Yes. Is it comparable to FGM? No.

I said, and I quote, "There's nothing inherently more complicated or dangerous about cutting a vagina than there is cutting a penis..."

I did not specify what kind of cutting. You made the assumption that I was comparing circumcision to something like Type III FGM, which I was not. I have never compared circumcision to all forms of FGM. Most often when I compare circumcision to FGM, I am comparing it to certain acts which are classified as Type IV, such as a ritualistic prick or piercing, because circumcision is objectively more dangerous, invasive, and damaging than any of those are. If I was to make a direct comparison of circumcision to a specific type of FGM, then it would be to Type Ia, because it is the direct female equivalent of male circumcision; removal of the clitoral hood, and nothing else.

So no, Nana, I did not say that Type III FGM is less dangerous that male circumcision.

Would you care to revise your post now?

[Eisarn-Ara]

Hey, if clipping a clit is awful, don' clip a dick. Simple as that.

So not comparable...

Wasn't this thread about double-standards in regard to non-consensual genital mutilation of minors?


Ohwait

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I read your post and I am telling that yes, FGM is more dangerous and complicated that foreskin removal, not only because of the conditions it is done in but also because of what is done to the female genitalia. Particularly type III. And I'm telling you this because by your own admission, you don't seem to know much about the subject of FGM.

Is circumcision mutilation? Yes. Is it comparable to FGM? No.

I said, and I quote, "There's nothing inherently more complicated or dangerous about cutting a vagina than there is cutting a penis..."

I did not specify what kind of cutting. You made the assumption that I was comparing circumcision to something like Type III FGM, which I was not. I have never compared circumcision to all forms of FGM. Most often when I compare circumcision to FGM, I am comparing it to certain acts which are classified as Type IV, such as a ritualistic prick or piercing, because circumcision is objectively more dangerous, invasive, and damaging than any of those are. If I was to make a direct comparison of circumcision to a specific type of FGM, then it is to Type Ia, because it is the direct female equivalent of male circumcision; removal of the clitoral hood, and nothing else.

So no, Nana, I did not say that Type III FGM is less dangerous that male circumcision.

Would you care to revise your post now?

Very well. Thanks for clarifying your position.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

So not comparable...

Wasn't this thread about double-standards in regard to non-consensual genital mutilation of minors?


Ohwait

Who has a double standard?

[Velkanika]

Wasn't this thread about double-standards in regard to non-consensual genital mutilation of minors?


Ohwait

Who has a double standard?

Your position is quite ironic given the title of the thread. While female genital mutilation has well documented medical differences with male circumcision and generally has a higher impact, they are both medical procedures that remove part of the genitalia. I found the resulting argument rather amusing in light of that and the thread title.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Who has a double standard?

Your position is quite ironic given the title of the thread. While female genital mutilation has well documented medical differences with male circumcision and generally has a higher impact, they are both medical procedures that remove part of the genitalia. I found the resulting argument rather amusing in light of that and the thread title.

How is my position ironic when I have said over and over, in this thread, that circumcision and FGM are mutilations and that, unless medically necessary, they shouldn't be carried out?

[Daburuetchi]

Really missed a golden opportunity by not calling this thread "Circumcision: A double edged sword or a flaccid comparison?"

[Velkanika]

Your position is quite ironic given the title of the thread. While female genital mutilation has well documented medical differences with male circumcision and generally has a higher impact, they are both medical procedures that remove part of the genitalia. I found the resulting argument rather amusing in light of that and the thread title.

How is my position ironic when I have said over and over, in this thread, that circumcision and FGM are mutilations and that, unless medically necessary, they shouldn't be carried out?

I'm not commenting on the overall thread, just the small argument following Eisarn's post. Gim immediately pointing out differences between the two was rather hilarious.

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

It's actually better to do it in the first few days after birth when you can't really feel or remember any pain. Contrary to what all the leftist doctors who say it's wrong, there are benefits to the procedure, for males. It reduces risk of cancer in that area. It used to actually be recommended for medical purposes rather than religious ones.