Genital mutilation or religious right?

[Godwilling]

Why is it that the removal of any part of the female genitals for non-medical reasons is officially termed "female genital mutilation", and it is illegal in the US and Canada and the same done to males is called "circumcision" and it is legal in both countries?

Should both be called male and female "circumcision" and be legal, or should both be called male and female "genital mutilation" and be illegal?

The official acceptance of each term appears based on preferential treatment of one religion over another.

Is all non-medical removals of part of humans' genitals mutilation or a religious right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most female genital mutilation being practiced today is much worse in effect than make circumcision, but I'd personally say that both are forms of mutilation.

But really, the difference in treatment under the law comes down to the harm associated with each. If you're talking about FGM practices like removal of the clitoris, then the male equivalent would be chopping off the whole glans, not just the foreskin.

That's why FGM is illegal.

As for the legality of infant male circumcision, my feeling is that it's an abhorrent practice that I wish did not occur in my society at all (ritual circumcision, that is - I realize that in rare cases, it's medically necessary) but I think a legal ban on it would be unworkable, so I would not be in favour of outlawing it.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Godwilling,

To personal understanding male circumcision is good as it helps in keeping the tool clean.
Does not *mutilation* take place during sex change operations?

Love & rgds

 

[Kathryn]

FGM is nearly always much more horrific than simple circumcision in a male. For one thing, it's usually done when a girl is around 8 years old, not 8 days old. The child is held down, usually by her own relatives, and butchered. The clitoris is usually completely removed, and often other natural skin in the area is removed as well. This is done while she is awake, by the way. It isn't over in two seconds and then forgotten.

Not to condone circumcision on ANYONE. I don't think it's necessary and did not choose to do that to my sons.

 

[Bob Dixon]

I wouldn't outlaw it. But what I would do is make it illegal without either a super-legitimate medical cause or the express consent of the one who is to be mutilated. Really, it's only children who are the issue here. Once someone is an adult, they should be able to mutilate themselves as much as they please.

 

[apophenia]

The aim of female genital mutilation is the sick idea that women should not enjoy sex, so the clitoris and labia are removed. This does not prevent the man from satisfying and enjoying his sexual desire of course, (nor does circumcision BTW) The men that demand this are subhuman IMO. It is part of the mindset of the worst kind of patriarchy, enforced by men with far less intelligence and compassion than rabid dogs, men who themselves demand the right to all the sexual pleasure they can arrange despite their clearly deluded claims to piety and purity.

To equate FGM with circumcision sounds to me like an attempt to justify or excuse an abominable act of disturbed minds.

 

[Kathryn]

The aim of female genital mutilation is the sick idea that women should not enjoy sex, so the clitoris and labia are removed. This does not prevent the man from satisfying and enjoying his sexual desire of course, (nor does circumcision BTW) The men that demand this are subhuman IMO. It is part of the mindset of the worst kind of patriarchy, enforced by men with far less intelligence and compassion than rabid dogs, men who themselves demand the right to all the sexual pleasure they can arrange despite their clearly deluded claims to piety and purity.

To equate FGM with circumcision sounds to me like an attempt to justify or excuse an abominable act of disturbed minds.

Well, you said it best of all!

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you said it best of all!

A wise man once asked, "How can a man truly satisfy a woman sexually?".
A real man answered, "Who cares?".

 

[fantome profane]

Does not *mutilation* take place during sex change operations?

That involves adults who have consented willingly to this operation. What this thread is talking about is something that is done to infants, or forcibly done to young girls.

I am in agreement with what seems to be the consensus so far. Male circumcision is unnecessary and I don't think it is a very good idea, but I don't think it should be illegal. Circumcised males are fine.

Female genital mutilation is very different. I don't think it is comparable to circumcision at all. In many respects it is more like castration.

 

[YmirGF]

The aim of female genital mutilation is the sick idea that women should not enjoy sex, so the clitoris and labia are removed. This does not prevent the man from satisfying and enjoying his sexual desire of course, (nor does circumcision BTW) The men that demand this are subhuman IMO. It is part of the mindset of the worst kind of patriarchy, enforced by men with far less intelligence and compassion than rabid dogs, men who themselves demand the right to all the sexual pleasure they can arrange despite their clearly deluded claims to piety and purity.

To equate FGM with circumcision sounds to me like an attempt to justify or excuse an abominable act of disturbed minds.

:clap:clap:clap
There can be no honest comparison between the two practices.

 

[Quintessence]

The aim of female genital mutilation is the sick idea that women should not enjoy sex.

I've heard alternative reasons for it.

FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts.

Among other things (wiki link).

 

[beenie]

FGM is nearly always much more horrific than simple circumcision in a male. For one thing, it's usually done when a girl is around 8 years old, not 8 days old. The child is held down, usually by her own relatives, and butchered. The clitoris is usually completely removed, and often other natural skin in the area is removed as well. This is done while she is awake, by the way. It isn't over in two seconds and then forgotten.

Not to condone circumcision on ANYONE. I don't think it's necessary and did not choose to do that to my sons.

Well said. I'm glad I didn't have to struggle with this, having all girls...
Religiously, it's a requirement for boys, but I'm not sure how I would have handled it, to be honest.

As for FGM, that is an entirely different situation, and not comparable in the least.

The aim of female genital mutilation is the sick idea that women should not enjoy sex, so the clitoris and labia are removed. This does not prevent the man from satisfying and enjoying his sexual desire of course, (nor does circumcision BTW) The men that demand this are subhuman IMO. It is part of the mindset of the worst kind of patriarchy, enforced by men with far less intelligence and compassion than rabid dogs, men who themselves demand the right to all the sexual pleasure they can arrange despite their clearly deluded claims to piety and purity.

To equate FGM with circumcision sounds to me like an attempt to justify or excuse an abominable act of disturbed minds.

:clap:clap Exactly.

I've heard alternative reasons for it.


Among other things (wiki link).

blah, blah, blah...girls are dirty, their excretions are dirty, blah, blah, blah...same old misogynistic garbage.

 

[Revoltingest]

:clap:clap:clap
There can be no honest comparison between the two practices.

Sure, there can. Despite big differences, both involve surgically altering the kid without his/her permission.
Let'm decide for themselves when they're older. My guess is that the vast majority will steer clear of slicing & dicing.

 

[Quintessence]

blah, blah, blah...girls are dirty, their excretions are dirty, blah, blah, blah...same old misogynistic garbage.

You do realize that in some traditional African cultures, males had grueling and painful rights of passage as well, right? I would be careful about dismissing rites of passage involving pain as misogynistic. It definitely will seem that way from our cultural perspective, but it doesn't hurt to take our cultural glasses off for a moment and look at things with a fresh pair of lenses. Our culture is terrified of pain, and any rituals and rites that involve it we condemn without so much as a second look. My mind is too inquisitive to merely demonize something and stop looking.

 

[Marble]

The aim of female genital mutilation is the sick idea that women should not enjoy sex, so the clitoris and labia are removed. This does not prevent the man from satisfying and enjoying his sexual desire of course, (nor does circumcision BTW) The men that demand this are subhuman IMO. It is part of the mindset of the worst kind of patriarchy, enforced by men with far less intelligence and compassion than rabid dogs, men who themselves demand the right to all the sexual pleasure they can arrange despite their clearly deluded claims to piety and purity.

To equate FGM with circumcision sounds to me like an attempt to justify or excuse an abominable act of disturbed minds.

:yes:

 

[beenie]

You do realize that in some traditional African cultures, males had grueling and painful rights of passage as well, right? I would be careful about dismissing rites of passage involving pain as misogynistic. It definitely will seem that way from our cultural perspective, but it doesn't hurt to take our cultural glasses off for a moment and look at things with a fresh pair of lenses. Our culture is terrified of pain, and any rituals and rites that involve it we condemn without so much as a second look. My mind is too inquisitive to merely demonize something and stop looking.

Agree with you wholeheartedly. However, we are discussing FGM here, and it is a misogynistic practice. I'm sure we'd find other practices disturbing too.

All cultural fears and unawareness aside, I have a huge issue with practices performed on innocent children that are painful and/or permanent. A girl can't undo FGM later, and the pain she had with the surgery is all repeated when she has intercourse, especially for the first time. Let's not forget that she will never enjoy it either. This isn't excusable matter the "culture". IMO.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Genital mutilation for non-medical reasons is absolutely legal in the United States and is often recommended by people in the "medical" field. They're called sex change operations.

Why is it that the removal of any part of the female genitals for non-medical reasons is officially termed "female genital mutilation", and it is illegal in the US and Canada and the same done to males is called "circumcision" and it is legal in both countries?

Should both be called male and female "circumcision" and be legal, or should both be called male and female "genital mutilation" and be illegal?

The official acceptance of each term appears based on preferential treatment of one religion over another.

Is all non-medical removals of part of humans' genitals mutilation or a religious right?

 

[Sunstone]

Agree with you wholeheartedly. However, we are discussing FGM here, and it is a misogynistic practice. I'm sure we'd find other practices disturbing too.

All cultural fears and unawareness aside, I have a huge issue with practices performed on innocent children that are painful and/or permanent. A girl can't undo FGM later, and the pain she had with the surgery is all repeated when she has intercourse, especially for the first time. Let's not forget that she will never enjoy it either. This isn't excusable matter the "culture". IMO.

I agree. Besides, there are much better ways to make sure women don't enjoy sex. You can make them marry me, for instance.

 

[gnomon]

Why is it that the removal of any part of the female genitals for non-medical reasons is officially termed "female genital mutilation", and it is illegal in the US and Canada and the same done to males is called "circumcision" and it is legal in both countries?

Should both be called male and female "circumcision" and be legal, or should both be called male and female "genital mutilation" and be illegal?

The official acceptance of each term appears based on preferential treatment of one religion over another.

Is all non-medical removals of part of humans' genitals mutilation or a religious right?

I agree with those who state that there is not much comparison between the two. Not even in the intent behind the practice.

Personally, I feel that the practice of FGM should be illegal. FGM, female circumcision or FGC.

Is it a religious right? Considering that most major religions do not support such a practice based on scripture and that the practice appears to predate the majority religions I would say no. Is it a cultural right? Not in my opinion.

 

[dawny0826]

Why is it that the removal of any part of the female genitals for non-medical reasons is officially termed "female genital mutilation", and it is illegal in the US and Canada and the same done to males is called "circumcision" and it is legal in both countries?

Should both be called male and female "circumcision" and be legal, or should both be called male and female "genital mutilation" and be illegal?

The official acceptance of each term appears based on preferential treatment of one religion over another.

Is all non-medical removals of part of humans' genitals mutilation or a religious right?

How the hell is circumcism on a male in any way mutilation if done for religious purposes or otherwise? Unless a complete hack job is done, most men are fully functional afterwards and are able to enjoy better hygiene.

Female circumcism is devastating physically and psychologically. She's loses the ability to experience pleasure in a way that she shouldn't be denied. She has an important part of her body removed.

Male circumcism is simply the removal of extra skin that isn't needed for sexual function or even urination. Give me a freaking break.