[jessupjonesjnr87]

A worthy cause but when will there be an International intolerance to male genital mutilation day?

[skinster]

I am intolerant to the mutilation and scarring of both sexes.

It's disgusting, and really mean too.

[Drlee]

If all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised it would save millions of lives. In fact, this is true worldwide. Careful what you complain about. Try to uncover the facts first.

Female mutilation is a crime against humanity. I wonder who does it most Skinster.

[Pants-of-dog]

A worthy cause but when will there be an International intolerance to male genital mutilation day?

It is interesting that threads about FGM invariably lead to debates about male circumcision.

I feel like there should be a version of Godwin’s law for this.

Female mutilation is a crime against humanity. I wonder who does it most Skinster.

Women from certain regions and ethnicities in parts of Africa.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

If all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised it would save millions of lives. In fact, this is true worldwide. Careful what you complain about. Try to uncover the facts first.

Female mutilation is a crime against humanity. I wonder who does it most Skinster.

So would carrying out masectomies but I feel that choice should be left up to the individual.

@Pants-of-dog FGM is a horrendous crime that should garnish disgust but why is MGM not viewed with even a partial amount of the same attention? Highlighting both would not detract from either.

The mutilation of someone's genitals without their consent is an act of barbarism that should not be tolerated yet in the so called civilised west MGM is a common occurance carried out routinely by our medical professions.

[Pants-of-dog]

FGM is a horrendous crime that should garnish disgust but why is MGM not viewed with even a partial amount of the same attention? Highlighting both would not detract from either.

The mutilation of someone's genitals without their consent is an act of barbarism that should not be tolerated yet in the so called civilised west MGM is a common occurance carried out routinely by our medical professions.

Why do you think men always take over any discussion about FGM and make it about circumcision?

[Godstud]

There is literally almost no comparison between FGM and circumcision. One is a method of oppression and the other is not.

[Albert]

Circumcision for boys has an impact on them as well. Once the foreskin that is cut off is gone, it exposes the head of the penis to erosion by the elements. This in long-term reduces sensitivity of the nerves.

I believe this is done in many parts of the world with a hope that it will reduce desire for carnal sins.

[ness31]

it exposes the head of the penis to erosion by the elements.

Really? Erosion by the elements?

[Saeko]

Involuntary circumcision for either sex is a barbaric practice.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Albert doesn't know what he's talking about.

Male circumcision, in the extreme majority of cases, doesn't lead to an increase or decrease in feeling, sexual ability, etc (a majority opinion according to the research done to date). It does, however, lower the risk of certain STDs, infections, cancer, and other diseases. It also improves one's personal hygiene.

However, I don't think it's ethical to perform circumcision on infants and children. While there are clear health benefits to male circumcision, it's a decision that should be left to an informed, educated adult.

I say that as someone who was circumcised as an infant. I'm not angry or resentful, but I should have had the decision to do it, if I wanted to, as an adult. I had no choice in the matter. Circumcision is a preventive operation in most cases (in some cases, it's highly recommended for specific diseases, including chronic male UTIs), and having it performed on children or anyone, without their consent, seems grossly unethical. It's something that can't be reversed, and should be a decision made by someone when they are able to make informed decisions about altering their body.

It would be like forcing labial reduction surgery on females, including children, without their consent/ability to make informed, educated life-changing choices. It's not ethical from any standpoint, unless it's medically necessary due to health complications.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Why do you think men always take over any discussion about FGM and make it about circumcision?

Well firstly POD this was intended to be a discussion about genital mutilation in general.

Also there isn't much of a debate to be had regarding FGM in the west. I think the general consensus is that it is wrong and should not happen, however male genital mutilation amongst babies is common place and seems to be accepted by a vast portion of the population, often carried out as part of religious ceremony.

I know this is anecdotal but I know someone in their mid 30's who has had the procedure carried out for medical reasons. I asked how was it and his response was "imagine having one of your eyelids removed and replaced with fabric". The surgeon told him after some time he would become desensitised.

[Igor Antunov]

Let's play 'spot the guy with the mutilated penis'. It will be obvious. Trying to justify the mangling of babies is a key indicator. Happy hunting!

And yes, ban all the mutilations. In fact, strictly oppress and control any religion that practices it.

Also, yes, there is a procedure on baby girls that is just as 'subtle' and 'minor' as that of circumcision on baby boys. So chaps, if you're going to promote male genital mutilation, please consider promoting some forms of female genital mutilation as well, you know, for consistency's sake.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

No one here has promoted circumcision of infants or involuntary circumcision at all, and there is no health benefit for adult women.

[ness31]

imagine having one of your eyelids removed and replaced with fabric

wtf is that’s supposed to make you imagine exactly? “It’s just not the same” would probably be a better description..

[jessupjonesjnr87]

It's supposed to describe removing the protective layer from a very sensitive area and having it replaced with fabric, like the kind of fabric boxers or shorts are made from. It's not just different, it's painful and uncomfortable and will remain that way until the sensitive are becomes desensitised to touch.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

It's supposed to describe removing the protective layer from a very sensitive area and having it replaced with fabric, like the kind of fabric boxers or shorts are made from. It's not just different, it's painful and uncomfortable and will remain that way until the sensitive area becomes desensitised to touch.

[Hong Wu]

Nothing says "women's sexual rights" like complete removal of the clitoris. If I weren't a dumb Trumpanzee I would understand this!

[ness31]

It's supposed to describe removing the protective layer from a very sensitive area and having it replaced with fabric, like the kind of fabric boxers or shorts are made from. It's not just different, it's painful and uncomfortable and will remain that way until the sensitive are becomes desensitised to touch.

Oh. Now I get it. Sorry...

[Godstud]

it exposes the head of the penis to erosion by the elements.

:lol: I suppose this would happen if you ran around naked all the time, like an ignoramus. I can't imagine it being a problem, otherwise.

This thread is almost as entertaining as the MGTOW one.

No one here has promoted circumcision of infants or involuntary circumcision at all, and there is no health benefit for adult women.

QFT.