NYT scraps 'female genital mutilation' for being 'culturally loaded' term

[Deleted]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/24...aded-term.html



Words are scary, cutting girls gentials is not scary.

"people who follow the rite"...the thing is, these little girls have no choice. This argument only holds ground if a woman chooses to do if she is 18 (her body, couldn't give a flying fuck). Since it still a child it simply is child abuse. Genital mutilation is the perfect term to describe this.

We also need to get rid of this SJW cultural thinking. If a culture performs deplorable "rite" we should get rid of them (the rites I mean!). If not, we might as well start this slavery thing again. Who are you to take those cotton picking slaves away from these Southern folks, it's their culture! (Mind you I only say this to show how utterly ridiculous this argument is.)

[zenkai]

Liberals using sensationalist terms: Trumpets rush to manufacture outrage.

Liberals stop using sensationalist terms: Trumpets rush harder to manufacture outrage.

A. Gender mutilation is not a sensationalist term it's what it is
B. This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue. You're really hung up on Trump aren't you? Pretty sure gender mutilation is a non partisan issue.

[THE Bigzoman]

On topic:


Call a spade a spade.

[Faenskap]

And do you know why people will start about male circumcision? And why do we not call male circumcision mgm? You know, as it is still mutilation!?

No, I don't know why there can't be a discussion on FGM without involving male circumcision.

For someone telling someone else to "read up" you sure as hell do not have allot of knowledge of the subject. Firstly, if you take the worst case of MGM and the worst case of FGM then the severity of the MGM is worse. Because, yes, cutting something of entirely (the whole phallus) trumps sewing something shut. This isn't to say that girls do not have it bad because of this, they do, but this isn't something that only happens to females.

I was unable to find anything about cultures that involve themselves with penectomy, that is, the removal of the penis, which you mention, not the removal of the foreskin itself. The closest was the Russian Skoptsy sect, in which men either removed the testicles alone or everything. What I was able to find, though, was that an estimated 140 million girls/women have undergone FGM (2005). Stop thinking that removing the clitoris ain't no thing, go ahead and have sex for a year without ever having an orgasm because you can't, come back and tell me how fun and rewarding that is for you.

It's a lot worse than "sewing something shut", for the worst case of FGM. It will take you ten minutes to urinate, if you crawl on the floor in menstrual pain, that's good (the painfuller the period, the more successful the FGM). Skin is cut away, then your legs are tied for a week. What happens? The skin on either side grows together, with only a small hole for fluids. What happens when you're married and about to have sex? This skin - that grew together - will have to be opened, by either a knife or a penis. Sounds enjoyable, no? What happens if this hole is considered too big? You'll do it again! And after you become a widow because you're living in a shithole with an average life expectancy of 39 years, well, you get stiched up again.

Moreover, since the mutilation is done when they are teenagers, they are considered adults after that, and thus not in need of more education. They risk bleeding to death, or bleed so much they develop anemia. Cysts might appear too, causing trouble down the line with sex and childbirth

Secondly, if you where to put the two least invasive forms of the MGM and FGM next to each other then the male one will be worse yet again. As the pin prick (Jewish custom) is nowhere as severe as circumcision is, yet it is still illegal.

I think - and many others with me - that having the ciltoris removed, which is considered the least severe form of FGM, is a lot worse and detrimental to one's sexual health and enjoyment compared to having the foreskin removed. Again, which cultures to practice cutting the penis? The closest I could find to male multilation, circumcision notwithstanding, was the dorsal slit/penile subincision, which does strike me as having far fewer victims, and still leading the victims to achieve sexual pleasure (as well as having the older men who had this done to them ages ago the possiblity to have a young boys penis in his own (aboriginals, don't ask))

I didn't made this post to have a "who has it worse" competition, im merely trying to point out how depraved the situation actually is. While we find it not okay to preform any form of MGM, even when it is comparable to the male circumcision version. Yet in America it is no problem to cut up baby boys because "muh religion". At the same time in African mothers are doing this FGM to their daughters for the freaking same reason as MGM is done to boys in America, "its not that bad, i have it too" "but, insert bogus medical reason" "the other sex thinks it looks pretty".

Cutting up babies is medieval and should not happen, period. It should not matter what sex it is before it is considered to be "a bad thing".

African and American parents invoking pain on those unable to concent is ridiculous, it's not that I don't agree, but you're presenting it as FGM is a lot less significant than male circumcision, or mutilation, if you insist on using that word, but within African cultures "hygiene" and "sterile" and "anaesthetic" are unknown words, so they will use glass or a rusty knife used on 30 different girls, and somehow I don't see that being the case in America

[Deleted]

Female genital mutilation and religiously motivated male circumcision should both be punished by law.

- - - Updated - - -

"people who follow the rite"...the thing is, these little girls have no choice. This argument only holds ground if a woman chooses to do if she is 18 (her body, couldn't give a flying fuck). Since it still a child it simply is child abuse. Genital mutilation is the perfect term to describe this.

We also need to get rid of this SJW cultural thinking. If a culture performs deplorable "rite" we should get rid of them (the rites I mean!). If not, we might as well start this slavery thing again. Who are you to take those cotton picking slaves away from these Southern folks, it's their culture! (Mind you I only say this to show how utterly ridiculous this argument is.)

Some people would consider me a SJW, and I am surely against child abuse regarding both genders. Such practices are definitively child abuse. If a cultural practice results in some kind bodily harm, then it should be abolished. Even a forced hair cut can lead to problems, because its FORCED.

[Deleted]

No, I don't know why there can't be a discussion on FGM without involving male circumcision.

That would make you a very either sexist or dense person. Cutting up and mutilating the genitals of babies is wrong, no matter what the gender is. What makes it even worse is that some western countries still have this barbaric practise.

I was unable to find anything about cultures that involve themselves with penectomy, that is, the removal of the penis, which you mention, not the removal of the foreskin itself. The closest was the Russian Skoptsy sect, in which men either removed the testicles alone or everything. What I was able to find, though, was that an estimated 140 million girls/women have undergone FGM (2005). Stop thinking that removing the clitoris ain't no thing, go ahead and have sex for a year without ever having an orgasm because you can't, come back and tell me how fun and rewarding that is for you.

So you did find it, as you know, removing everything was what i was on about. And it also happens to male slaves that have to be around the woman of their masters. I
never suggested that it isn't a thing to cut of the clitoris, that is you trying to strawman. Fact is, i have been saying that it is unacceptable no matter what gender baby it is, it should not be. But somehow pointing out that males go through this even in western society is a no no, because clearly woman have it somehow worse. This is incredible sexist, just saying.

It's a lot worse than "sewing something shut", for the worst case of FGM. It will take you ten minutes to urinate, if you crawl on the floor in menstrual pain, that's good (the painfuller the period, the more successful the FGM). Skin is cut away, then your legs are tied for a week. What happens? The skin on either side grows together, with only a small hole for fluids. What happens when you're married and about to have sex? This skin - that grew together - will have to be opened, by either a knife or a penis. Sounds enjoyable, no? What happens if this hole is considered too big? You'll do it again! And after you become a widow because you're living in a shithole with an average life expectancy of 39 years, well, you get stiched up again.

And you go and try to pee without a penis and see how well that goes... Again, putting up the worst kind of one versus the mildest form of another is being dishonest.

Moreover, since the mutilation is done when they are teenagers, they are considered adults after that, and thus not in need of more education. They risk bleeding to death, or bleed so much they develop anemia. Cysts might appear too, causing trouble down the line with sex and childbirth

So the same as with males and male rights all over this backwards world..

I think - and many others with me - that having the ciltoris removed, which is considered the least severe form of FGM, is a lot worse and detrimental to one's sexual health and enjoyment compared to having the foreskin removed. Again, which cultures to practice cutting the penis? The closest I could find to male multilation, circumcision notwithstanding, was the dorsal slit/penile subincision, which does strike me as having far fewer victims, and still leading the victims to achieve sexual pleasure (as well as having the older men who had this done to them ages ago the possiblity to have a young boys penis in his own (aboriginals, don't ask))

Aaand a flat out lie, the mildest form of FGM is the pinprick that is done by the Jews, although still barbaric it doesn't leave any lasting damage. Then there are types that are completely the same as a circumcision, but still are very illegal. Just not illegal on boys in our western society

African and American parents invoking pain on those unable to concent is ridiculous, it's not that I don't agree, but you're presenting it as FGM is a lot less significant than male circumcision, or mutilation, if you insist on using that word, but within African cultures "hygiene" and "sterile" and "anaesthetic" are unknown words, so they will use glass or a rusty knife used on 30 different girls, and somehow I don't see that being the case in America

I do not present anything, im merely pointing out that there are versions of pretty much all versions of FGM and MGM that are comparable, and all of them are wrong.

[Faenskap]

That would make you a very either sexist or dense person. Cutting up and mutilating the genitals of babies is wrong, no matter what the gender is. What makes it even worse is that some western countries still have this barbaric practise.

For the girls' part, they're not even babies when this happens, you know that? That means they're well aware of what's going on, unlike a baby, who, without doubt will experience the pain too, but not able to recall it. Makes it slightly worse, no?

So you did find it, as you know, removing everything was what i was on about. And it also happens to male slaves that have to be around the woman of their masters. I never suggested that it isn't a thing to cut of the clitoris, that is you trying to strawman. Fact is, i have been saying that it is unacceptable no matter what gender baby it is, it should not be. But somehow pointing out that males go through this even in western society is a no no, because clearly woman have it somehow worse. This is incredibly sexist, just saying.

FGM happens in cultures in today's world. Yes, yes, eunuchs. They were castrated, not emasculated. There is a difference, and certainly not right for the men that were victims of it. Though can you point me towards a culture of today wherein the penis is removed? I'm not strawmanning, removing of the clitoris does prevent a better sexlife. Someone with a removed foreskin can still have a just as fulfilling sexlife. Besides, you're acting as if FGM is just pinpricking

And you go and try to pee without a penis and see how well that goes... Again, putting up the worst kind of one versus the mildest form of another is being dishonest.

So FGM type III and its' physical implications don't gather your sympathy because males around the world may have been emasculated. There are far more female unable to pee normally than there are men. There are also instruments/tool in place for the men, I would imagine. Even the Skoptsy had this, to help those that voluntairly had their penis removed

So the same as with males and male rights all over this backwards world..

I'm sorry, do you really claim males world-wide are worse off than the females? Like, seriously? I don't see how the physical implications of FGM are related in any way to the world-wide male struggle, but do enlighten me. FGM = no more school, no more education, bound to be a housewife at age 13-14-15, unless you die in labor (very likely, indeed)

Aaand a flat out lie, the mildest form of FGM is the pinprick that is done by the Jews, although still barbaric it doesn't leave any lasting damage. Then there are types that are completely the same as a circumcision, but still are very illegal. Just not illegal on boys in our western society

From what I've gathered, Jews don't even engage in FGM, the only possible place would be with Ethiopian Jews, and they do that regardless of religion. Secondly, you're acting as if the "pinprick" is a synonym for FGM. If it were, there wouldn't be global campaigns to end it. If you're in a country where FGM is common, you're lucky to have the "pinprick". Furthermore, information about this pinpricking itself is hard to come by, because, I think, it's not relevant in many cases. However, cutting off the clitoris, and sewing everything up, are common, and way worse than foreskin removal. Clitorectomy, of course can be compared to removal of penis, but again, the former has a looot more victims

I do not present anything, im merely pointing out that there are versions of pretty much all versions of FGM and MGM that are comparable, and all of them are wrong.

I think genital mutilation should be of the discretion of the genitals' owner. Still, you should understand that having clitoris removed is more severe than having the foreskin removed, surely? You're also talking in narrow terms, where to you, pinpricking of female genitalia and penis removal are common, though when one talks about genital mutlation, clitorectomy/influbation (type II and III) are most common, as well as removing the foreskin of the males

[Deleted]

Cunt Cutting is a much less cultural loaded term.

[Deleted]

NYT truly turned into leftist partisan garbage.

[Deleted]

For the girls' part, they're not even babies when this happens, you know that? That means they're well aware of what's going on, unlike a baby, who, without doubt will experience the pain too, but not able to recall it. Makes it slightly worse, no?

You mean just like all the rites males go through in backwards places. You are acting as living in those places is exclusively bad for woman, that is just plain sexist.

FGM happens in cultures in today's world. Yes, yes, eunuchs. They were castrated, not emasculated. There is a difference, and certainly not right for the men that were victims of it. Though can you point me towards a culture of today wherein the penis is removed? I'm not strawmanning, removing of the clitoris does prevent a better sexlife. Someone with a removed foreskin can still have a just as fulfilling sexlife. Besides, you're acting as if FGM is just pinpricking

Eunuchs are castrated and or emasculated in a whole. Places that still have slaves will still practice this to, again, you are acting as if the shitty places on earth are only shitty to females, and that is just plain sexist.. I know removing the clitoris does prevent a better sexlife, i would say a sex life period. Yes that is bad, you know what is also bad? Males getting circumcised in America to prevent them from having a better sex life. See, you keep pointing out how life is shitty for woman in obscure places, while i keep pointing out that this shitty behaviour is still happening in the United states. And, like it or not, but the pin prick is the mildest form of FGM while the mildest for for males is circumcision.

So FGM type III and its' physical implications don't gather your sympathy because males around the world may have been emasculated. There are far more female unable to pee normally than there are men. There are also instruments/tool in place for the men, I would imagine. Even the Skoptsy had this, to help those that voluntairly had their penis removed

Oh look, another strawman, i never said they did not gather my sympathy, im not like you where another gender baby's genitals doesn't matter to me. I'm merely pointing out the double standard that you keep pushing.

I'm sorry, do you really claim males world-wide are worse off than the females? Like, seriously? I don't see how the physical implications of FGM are related in any way to the world-wide male struggle, but do enlighten me. FGM = no more school, no more education, bound to be a housewife at age 13-14-15, unless you die in labor (very likely, indeed)

If you had bothered to read anything you would understand that im merely pointing out again that the world sucks, to act as if it is only females that undergo these rights is again either sexist or dense. A whole array of initiation rites are done across the world, while the male and female ones are not the same, often they are equally abhorrent. Another dishonest thing you keep doing is comparing their culture to ours and judging them on it. You can not judge a country with having "backwards gender roles" if they actually need those gender roles in order to survive.

From what I've gathered, Jews don't even engage in FGM, the only possible place would be with Ethiopian Jews, and they do that regardless of religion. Secondly, you're acting as if the "pinprick" is a synonym for FGM. If it were, there wouldn't be global campaigns to end it. If you're in a country where FGM is common, you're lucky to have the "pinprick". Furthermore, information about this pinpricking itself is hard to come by, because, I think, it's not relevant in many cases. However, cutting off the clitoris, and sewing everything up, are common, and way worse than foreskin removal. Clitorectomy, of course can be compared to removal of penis, but again, the former has a looot more victims

Then you have gathered wrong, Jews practise the pin prick, it might not leave damage, but pricking a newborn baby girl in the clitoris is downright barbaric. As for the "not having any action taken against it", again, just look at males and their plight, they do not get any action taken against it, even though it is practised in America. Point is, people are still not condoning this religious bullshit like they should.

I think genital mutilation should be of the discretion of the genitals' owner. Still, you should understand that having clitoris removed is more severe than having the foreskin removed, surely? You're also talking in narrow terms, where to you, pinpricking of female genitalia and penis removal are common, though when one talks about genital mutlation, clitorectomy/influbation (type II and III) are most common, as well as removing the foreskin of the males

I never said that having your foreskin removed is more severe then having your clitoris removed, that again, is just you trying to strawman.
What you need to understand that you are setting up the worst form of FGM against the most mild form of MGM and that this practice is downright dishonest. This is all i have ever said, yet this is somehow like me saying "FGM isn't bad", according to you.
I never said it was common, i said it was the male equivalent, and that for every type of genital mutilation of one gender there is a comparable form for the other sex. And if you where to compare the ones that you can actually compare that then the males are off worse. Because they lose everything down there including their balls that are responsible for many of their hormones.
There are forms of FGM that are very comparable to male circumcision, yet these are all very illegal in our western society (and rightly so), why is this?

What it comes down to is this, you blame ancient cultures that are still living in huts trying to scrape by in our modern world. Yes, they have some very backwards practices in those cultures, but those aren't sexist against woman as they have just as many stupid initiation rites for males. They might not be exactly the same, but if you claim that it is sexist against one sex that is just you showing that you do not understand the situation that these people live in and come from.
What i am pointing out is that some of these barbaric practices are still being done to our males in our western society this very day. Yet this somehow doesn't get you half as riled up as what happens to a female half a world away, even though this happens right next to you.

[Deletedaccount1]

Female genital mutilation and religiously motivated male circumcision should both be punished by law.

Why would it matter if the circumcision is religiously motivated or not? That is like saying a guy should get a longer sentence for killing someone because he was part of a certain religion instead of just punishing him for killing someone for any reason. Not all FGM is religiously motivated either.

I don't think it is fair to compare the two either when there isn't conclusive evidence that circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity or has any lasting negative effects while it has definite positive effects.

[Faenskap]

You mean just like all the rites males go through in backwards places. You are acting as living in those places is exclusively bad for woman, that is just plain sexist.

Addressed further down

Eunuchs are castrated and or emasculated in a whole. Places that still have slaves will still practice this to, again, you are acting as if the shitty places on earth are only shitty to females, and that is just plain sexist.. I know removing the clitoris does prevent a better sexlife, i would say a sex life period. Yes that is bad, you know what is also bad? Males getting circumcised in America to prevent them from having a better sex life. See, you keep pointing out how life is shitty for woman in obscure places, while i keep pointing out that this shitty behaviour is still happening in the United states. And, like it or not, but the pin prick is the mildest form of FGM while the mildest for for males is circumcision.

Which places today have slaves? Which places that still have slaves practise castration/emasculation?
From what I gather about male circimsision in America, it started as a trend to cure illnesses and to prevent masturbation, whereas these days, it's considered to be cleaner. The view has shifted, and the point of circumcision is no longer to prevent masturbation. Removal of the clitoris, however, still has "preventing sexual desire/ruining virginity" as reasons for getting it done.
Which cultures prefer pinpricking to type I, II and III in areas where FGM is common?

Oh look, another strawman, i never said they did not gather my sympathy, im not like you where another gender baby's genitals doesn't matter to me. I'm merely pointing out the double standard that you keep pushing.

What doublestandard? I'm willing to bet that number of women experiencing troubles urination far surpasses the one with males without penis doing the same. You're also mixing two things, you're talking about the forceable removal of penis on adult men, while also dabbling into "babies' genitalia". Is there a culture that removes male babies' penisies? I am more concerned for the larger number of women who can't pee nor have their period normally. I've been asking you for culture(s) that mutilate a male's penis to such an extent/remove it that is indeed comparable

If you had bothered to read anything you would understand that im merely pointing out again that the world sucks, to act as if it is only females that undergo these rights is again either sexist or dense. A whole array of initiation rites are done across the world, while the male and female ones are not the same, often they are equally abhorrent.

Why are you adding male inition rites into the mix of male babies' genitalia and slaves that are castrated/emasculated? Don't forget that in non-FGM cultures, girls also partake in rites.

Another dishonest thing you keep doing is comparing their culture to ours and judging them on it. You can not judge a country with having "backwards gender roles" if they actually need those gender roles in order to survive.

This is weird post from someone calling others dense and/or sexist...
Will a culture survive if a girl recives education?
Will a culture survive is a girl isn't virgin before marriage? (though what the boys are, never matters)
Will a culture survive if a girl is free to sleep with who she wants and it's understood that sexuality is for her too, not just men?
Will a culture survive without honor killings?
Will a culture survive if a girl/woman can be more than a housewife in a home made out of cow droppings/mud?
Will a culture survive if a girl doesn't become pregnant after her 1st period and dies in childbirth later on because she's too young to give birth and medical care is for pussies (evidently, not literally)

You don't need a fucking PhD in anthropology to understand that a shithole is shit for everyone, but worse for women. What backwards, shitty genderroles are needed for a culture to survive? Virginity? Submission? No education? Please, enlighten me!

Then you have gathered wrong, Jews practise the pin prick, it might not leave damage, but pricking a newborn baby girl in the clitoris is downright barbaric.

Source?

As for the "not having any action taken against it", again, just look at males and their plight, they do not get any action taken against it, even though it is practised in America. Point is, people are still not condoning this religious bullshit like they should.

You might be right

I never said that having your foreskin removed is more severe then having your clitoris removed, that again, is just you trying to strawman.
What you need to understand that you are setting up the worst form of FGM against the most mild form of MGM and that this practice is downright dishonest. This is all i have ever said, yet this is somehow like me saying "FGM isn't bad", according to you.
I never said it was common, i said it was the male equivalent, and that for every type of genital mutilation of one gender there is a comparable form for the other sex. And if you where to compare the ones that you can actually compare that then the males are off worse. Because they lose everything down there including their balls that are responsible for many of their hormones.
There are forms of FGM that are very comparable to male circumcision, yet these are all very illegal in our western society (and rightly so), why is this?

First, I'd like some numbers regarding castration/emasculation, for I have yet to you see you producing any sort of sources as to how widespread it is. Then you keep on about pinpricking. Pinpricking, from what I've gathered is rare, and in the subcategory of FGM type IV. The most common form of FGM is type II, which is the complete or partial removal of the clitoris, which is like having most of you penis removed (except for a tiny part so you can pee problemfree). Then there is type III which is like having everything on a man removed. But there are WAY MORE WOMEN having type III than males having everything cut off.

What it comes down to is this, you blame ancient cultures that are still living in huts trying to scrape by in our modern world. Yes, they have some very backwards practices in those cultures, but those aren't sexist against woman as they have just as many stupid initiation rites for males. They might not be exactly the same, but if you claim that it is sexist against one sex that is just you showing that you do not understand the situation that these people live in and come from.
What i am pointing out is that some of these barbaric practices are still being done to our males in our western society this very day.

I don't even... You are mixing different cultures here. Yes, in Papua New Guinea they have some weird stuff going on, like sucking off and swallowing another man. Though when FGM is discussed and how poor men still suffer, the discussion should concern itself with countries in which victims of FGM and their male counterparts live. Like Somalia, Egypt, Eritrea, Dijbouti and Ethiopia

Yet this somehow doesn't get you half as riled up as what happens to a female half a world away

I'm less concerned about a male baby getting circumsised in a sterile hospital environment than a Somali girl about to get stiched up trough the means of broken glass/scissors.

even though this happens right next to you.

No, it doesn't.

[Deleted]

Addressed further down

Which places today have slaves? Which places that still have slaves practise castration/emasculation?
From what I gather about male circimsision in America, it started as a trend to cure illnesses and to prevent masturbation, whereas these days, it's considered to be cleaner. The view has shifted, and the point of circumcision is no longer to prevent masturbation. Removal of the clitoris, however, still has "preventing sexual desire/ruining virginity" as reasons for getting it done.
Which cultures prefer pinpricking to type I, II and III in areas where FGM is common?

Parts in Africa still have slaves, same goes for the most tribal societies, most have some from of slaves, but it is all besides the point. This all comes from the simple statement that having your penis and everything else removed is worst from of genital mutilation. It doesn't matter how often it happens, what matters is that it is a thing and if you want to compare forms of genital mutilation against each other then you have to pick two that are comparable.
That it is "considered more hygienic" in America is about as cultural as you can get and isn 't a good reason to cut up baby genitals.

What doublestandard? I'm willing to bet that number of women experiencing troubles urination far surpasses the one with males without penis doing the same. You're also mixing two things, you're talking about the forceable removal of penis on adult men, while also dabbling into "babies' genitalia". Is there a culture that removes male babies' penisies? I am more concerned for the larger number of women who can't pee nor have their period normally. I've been asking you for culture(s) that mutilate a male's penis to such an extent/remove it that is indeed comparable

Of course there isn't one that removes penises, that would mean that they can not procreate any more. And i did not know that there is a greater number then "all of them" As every male without a dick will have troubles urinating.
And again, that you are more concerned about the well being of woman in backwards places then the males in your own country is rather sexist.

Why are you adding male inition rites into the mix of male babies' genitalia and slaves that are castrated/emasculated? Don't forget that in non-FGM cultures, girls also partake in rites.

Because the male initiation rites are the exact same thing you are going on about. These males get circumcised at that age with the same rusty tools as females.

This is weird post from someone calling others dense and/or sexist...

See, you simply do not get what it takes to survive for these cultures.

Will a culture survive if a girl recives education?

Culture might, family will most certainly not, just like it will not survive if they send their boys to school. This isn't about woman hating, but rather harsh reality.

Will a culture survive is a girl isn't virgin before marriage? (though what the boys are, never matters)

Will your blood line survive, will all the hard work you have put in that go to waste as it is not your blood. I know this is hard for you to understand, but really, these are people living in huts trying to scrape by in our modern world while living in the middle ages. The worries they have do not compare one bit to the ones we have and you can not compare them one on one.

Will a culture survive if a girl is free to sleep with who she wants and it's understood that sexuality is for her too, not just men?

Men cant sleep with whom ever they want, and you still do not understand how biology works it seems.

Will a culture survive without honor killings?

This is a mostly Islamic thing and not the ones in Africa we where discussing previously, try to keep it on one thing at a time.

Will a culture survive if a girl/woman can be more than a housewife in a home made out of cow droppings/mud?

Again, very clueless as to why this was in the past. No families would not survive this for sure.

Will a culture survive if a girl doesn't become pregnant after her 1st period and dies in childbirth later on because she's too young to give birth and medical care is for pussies (evidently, not literally)

Again, this is you judging people for not knowing what we know and you basically crap all over them for not having hospitals, good work. While at the same time you ignore the fact that males over there live in the same condition having to deal with the same bullshit. But that doesn't fit your agenda.

You don't need a fucking PhD in anthropology to understand that a shithole is shit for everyone, but worse for women. What backwards, shitty genderroles are needed for a culture to survive? Virginity? Submission? No education? Please, enlighten me!

But of course it is more bad for woman, woman have it always more bad, boo fucking hoo. Can not take this seriously.
If you can not understand where gender roles come from then i suggest you have some reading to do, they didn't emerge to piss off woman, they have a function. You may not agree with these functions, you may even not understand them, but that isn't to say that they aren't there.

First, I'd like some numbers regarding castration/emasculation, for I have yet to you see you producing any sort of sources as to how widespread it is. Then you keep on about pinpricking. Pinpricking, from what I've gathered is rare, and in the subcategory of FGM type IV. The most common form of FGM is type II, which is the complete or partial removal of the clitoris, which is like having most of you penis removed (except for a tiny part so you can pee problemfree). Then there is type III which is like having everything on a man removed. But there are WAY MORE WOMEN having type III than males having everything cut off.

You keep getting hang up on this, it is not important, i merely pointed out that the extreme male versions are more extreme then the extreme female versions, and that comparable versions to male circumcision are not allowed to practice on woman.
If you want a number then ill give you this number, about 1 billion men that are circumcised.

I don't even... You are mixing different cultures here. Yes, in Papua New Guinea they have some weird stuff going on, like sucking off and swallowing another man. Though when FGM is discussed and how poor men still suffer, the discussion should concern itself with countries in which victims of FGM and their male counterparts live. Like Somalia, Egypt, Eritrea, Dijbouti and Ethiopia

The only one mixing cultures here is you. You are absolutely clueless about what happens to males, it seems you are only interested what happens to females and be outraged. If you can not be bothered to weed out MGM in your own culture then you have no leg to stand on while complaining about FGM as far as i am concerned.

I'm less concerned about a male baby getting circumsised in a sterile hospital environment than a Somali girl about to get stiched up trough the means of broken glass/scissors.

And that is incredibly sexist of you, its not like the boys get to be circumcised over there with better tools or anything like that. And as i have stated, you have no right to complain about FGM in other places if you can not be bothered to root out MGM in your own culture.

No, it doesn't.

So you do not live in a western country?

Edit, looked up the pin prick, but from what i gathered it was the jews that implemented it as "another option" to the Jews of Ethiopia that came there. But still, it is part of the FGM spectrum.

[Mormolyce]

Honestly I think that's disgusting.

When during a male circumcision a butcher cuts a tip of a penis off - it's considered a malpractice. So we should call FGM - "female circumcision malpractice" or FCM, and punish every practitioner.

Um, did your high school biology class fail to inform you that the foreskin is not the tip of the penis? That's the glans.

- - - Updated - - -

Female genital mutilation and religiously motivated male circumcision should both be punished by law.

Stop conflating two unrelated things.

If you don't like circumcision, fine. But it is not equivalent to FGM. FGM is essentially equivalent to emasculation.

No, I don't know why there can't be a discussion on FGM without involving male circumcision.

Because the alt-right and anti feminist movement needs to muddy the waters on any women's rights issue.

[Deleted]

"The Failing NYT" is a term Trump started using becuase he didn't like what he was reading.
It's just ridiculous that his fanboys are using it in their headlines now.

I thought the OP deserved an equally ridiculous questing to balance it all out.

That's great, how does it change that the NYT is rapidly failing when looking at sales, readership etc. Also was it the NYT times who ran "Chinese Party sponsored" articles which effectively aimed at silencing anti government criticism abroad by Chinese exiles or a similar paper?

[Slant]

"The Failing NYT"?
Hows your own newspaper doing?

It's Cybran. He can't take a dump without using propaganda to justify it.

- - - Updated - - -

That's great, how does it change that the NYT is rapidly failing when looking at sales, readership etc. Also was it the NYT times who ran "Chinese Party sponsored" articles which effectively aimed at silencing anti government criticism abroad by Chinese exiles or a similar paper?

It isn't failing. It's transitioning. And growing.

[Elim Garak]

Um, did your high school biology class fail to inform you that the foreskin is not the tip of the penis?

Who was your English teacher? I'd like a word with them.

[Deleted]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/24...aded-term.html



Words are scary, cutting girls gentials is not scary.

Even scarier, it seems for the first time I agree on something with Fox 'news'

[Faenskap]

Parts in Africa still have slaves, same goes for the most tribal societies, most have some from of slaves, but it is all besides the point. This all comes from the simple statement that having your penis and everything else removed is worst from of genital mutilation. It doesn't matter how often it happens, what matters is that it is a thing and if you want to compare forms of genital mutilation against each other then you have to pick two that are comparable.
That it is "considered more hygienic" in America is about as cultural as you can get and isn 't a good reason to cut up baby genitals.

Where in today's modern world is it customary to cut off a man's penis? Where is today's modern world does this occur often? Where in today's modern world is cutting off a penis considered to be necessary? Why do you keep mixing circumcision of (American) male babies with penis removal in parts of the world? "The more hygienic" point of view isn't mine, it's American

Of course there isn't one that removes penises, that would mean that they can not procreate any more. And i did not know that there is a greater number then "all of them" As every male without a dick will have troubles urinating.

The number of men who has had their penis cut off - cancer/illness not withstanding - are a very very very tiny minority, far surpassed by women who underwent type III FGM

And again, that you are more concerned about the well being of woman in backwards places then the males in your own country is rather sexist.

Well, you seem awfully concerned about the urination issues brought on by removal of penis, as well as rusty tools used to facilitate male circumcision in backward countries, rather than caring about the females risking FGM in your own country, as the immigrants go back home to have it done. Doesn't that stance fall under one of your favorite words, 'double standard'?
I don't even live in a country where male circumcision is the norm!

Because the male initiation rites are the exact same thing you are going on about. These males get circumcised at that age with the same rusty tools as females.

You what now? Maybe you need to specify a lot better; male rites of passage don't need to include circumcision. Besides, I'd rather be bitten by bullet ants than have a Somali style FGM.

See, you simply do not get what it takes to survive for these cultures.

And you do? Haha. What does it take for shithole countries to survive? Better medical facilities, education for girls, an end to war, the countries' leaders to be leaders and not fucking vultures and fucking human rights. There is NO reason to keep on suppressing girls/women in order to survive

Culture might, family will most certainly not, just like it will not survive if they send their boys to school. This isn't about woman hating, but rather harsh reality.

Right, so by not caring about American boys undergoing circumcision, but caring about the health/safety of African girls, I'm being sexist. But you are NOT sexist for believing a family would collapse should the girls receive education? What the fuck are you smoking? Please tell me, so I can avoid it

Will your blood line survive, will all the hard work you have put in that go to waste as it is not your blood. I know this is hard for you to understand, but really, these are people living in huts trying to scrape by in our modern world while living in the middle ages. The worries they have do not compare one bit to the ones we have and you can not compare them one on one.

How the fuck is this relevant to allowing girls to have sex before marriage? Blood line? Oh, maybe we should teach the newer generations about this thing called "birth control" and provide them with it, while at the same time reduce the stigma surrounding abortion? Possibly connected to improved medical facilities I mentioned above? But no, we can't have that. The blood line will collapse if the girls have sex with who they want, when they want!

Men cant sleep with whom ever they want, and you still do not understand how biology works it seems.

You're clueless

This is a mostly Islamic thing and not the ones in Africa we where discussing previously, try to keep it on one thing at a time.

Because that's your strong suit, isn't it? Islam also holds a vert strong presence in countries with FGM

Again, very clueless as to why this was in the past. No families would not survive this for sure.

A woman in Somalia amounting to something more than a housewife will be the end of the family?

Again, this is you judging people for not knowing what we know and you basically crap all over them for not having hospitals, good work. While at the same time you ignore the fact that males over there live in the same condition having to deal with the same bullshit. But that doesn't fit your agenda.

No, they want girls married off as early as possible, because that reduces the risk of losing their virginity to someone unintended and an older, unmarried girl won't be as attractive. A girl is also an expense, the boys not so much. While they may have hospitals, girls are an expense, I bet they aren't first in line. I'm "crapping" on them because the governments take what they can and give nothing back to the people, and the people still maintain ridiculous views

But of course it is more bad for woman, woman have it always more bad, boo fucking hoo. Can not take this seriously.

If you can't understand that living in a society heavily influenced by tradition and religion is worse for women than men, then it's I who can't take YOU seriously.

If you can not understand where gender roles come from then i suggest you have some reading to do, they didn't emerge to piss off woman, they have a function. You may not agree with these functions, you may even not understand them, but that isn't to say that they aren't there.

You don't seem particularly saddened by those roles and act as if they can't change, won't change, needn't change. Isn't that sexist?

You keep getting hang up on this, it is not important, i merely pointed out that the extreme male versions are more extreme then the extreme female versions, and that comparable versions to male circumcision are not allowed to practice on woman.

FGM type II is comparable to having the penis removed, I'll argue FGM type III is the equivalent of having everything on a man removed

If you want a number then ill give you this number, about 1 billion men that are circumcised.

And how many have had their penis removed, because you're acting as if it's common

The only one mixing cultures here is you. You are absolutely clueless about what happens to males, it seems you are only interested what happens to females and be outraged.

YOU are the one talking about male rates of passage, which MAY include circumcision, or it may not. YOU are the one talking about American baby boys being circumcised, YOU are the one then proceeding to talk about the castration/emasculation of slaves. I've concerned myself with AFRICA, in MODERN times.

If you can not be bothered to weed out MGM in your own culture then you have no leg to stand on while complaining about FGM as far as i am concerned.

I
DON'T
LIVE
IN
A
CULTURE
WITH
MALE CIRCUMSION

And EVEN SO, I'd still fight for the end of FGM

And that is incredibly sexist of you, its not like the boys get to be circumcised over there with better tools or anything like that. And as i have stated, you have no right to complain about FGM in other places if you can not be bothered to root out MGM in your own culture.

You keep on mentioning sexism, how truly do YOU care about the girls undergoing FGM. Not a fucking lot. It's fucking obvious

So you do not live in a western country?

I DO. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE to live in a western country that ISN'T America, and that has NO tradition of male circumcision, or FGM for that matter

Edit, looked up the pin prick, but from what i gathered it was the jews that implemented it as "another option" to the Jews of Ethiopia that came there. But still, it is part of the FGM spectrum.

Then it affects a VERY tiny minority, though still higher in numbers than slave masters chopping off the penises of their male thralls

[Faenskap]

Because the alt-right and anti feminist movement needs to muddy the waters on any women's rights issue.

You are right, it was a question to which is answer was already obvious