MNT Contributor asks: "Should we soften our approach to female genital mutilation?"

[minteK917]

No, the foreskin protects the bit that do.
also it actually is, but whatever.

I disagree with both, but its clear both arent at the same degree. The most extreme version of FGM, literally removes all sensitivity for women, because of how deep the clitoris goes and how much of the lips they remove. Cicrumcision reduce some sensitivity. While i think both should be banned, if they were similar, circumcision would remove the head of the penis completely.

[Theodarzna]

I admire the practicality of the article,

We could take our harsh approach, but the problem is cultures tend to circle the wagons when they feel attack, hence the ineffectual nature of campaigns against female genital mutilation.

"As a cultural rite, it signifies a means of making girls and women physically, aesthetically or socially acceptable to men."

While we disagree on the nature of the cultural rite, I.E. I think its a savage practice, I think we need to have some wiggle room, for example perhaps having just a prick of a needle to draw blood as the ideal practice.

Category 1 nicks could be allowed as a stop gap, but we would have to put considerable punishment on the practice of all other categories in order to strongly pressure those to go into that Category. More over we would have to slowly drift the culture towards total abandonment of the practice, but Category 1 acceptance might be a healthy compromise to move such societies into the right direction.

As for male circumcision, it does make us somewhat hypocritical to have widespread cultural acceptance of essentially a cosmetic surgery on boys purely for aesthetics while we criticize another culture who does it for purely the same reason. Allowing Category 1 practices on some level makes us not seem like flaming hypocrites.

[Deleted]

I disagree with both, but its clear both arent at the same degree. The most extreme version of FGM, literally removes all sensitivity for women, because of how deep the clitoris goes and how much of the lips they remove. Cicrumcision reduce some sensitivity. While i think both should be banned, if they were similar, circumcision would remove the head of the penis completely.

Well first of, A, the foreskin is very sensitive.
B, Removing the protective skin, drastically reduces sensitivity of the glans.
C, Only one is legal in the west - So permit me to not give a shit about FGM.

[Wyrt]

Well first of, A, the foreskin is very sensitive.
B, Removing the protective skin, drastically reduces sensitivity of the glans.
C, Only one is legal in the west - So permit me to not give a shit about FGM.

Then argue against circumcision. Don't argue for the much, much more severe FGM.

[Seranthor]

Link

"A paper published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics asks whether some forms of female genital mutilation should be legalized in America. They argue that not allowing minor versions of the operation is a form of cultural prejudice.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a hot topic and a subject that insights anger, confusion and distress.

In many countries, the practice is extremely prevalent and shows little sign of slowing. In Egypt, for instance, between 2006-2011, the percentage of girls undergoing FGM only dropped from 77.8% to 71.6%.

In one study conducted in Somalia, 81% of subjects underwent infibulation (complete excision of the clitoris, labia minora, and most of the labia majora) and only 3% did not have any form of FGM.

A recent paper - written by Dr. Kavita Shah Arora, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, and Allen J. Jacobs, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stony Brook University, NY - puts a new slant on the difficult topic."

Anyone that supports any form of FGM then looks at certain groups in the US and accuses them of a 'war on women' is dishonest and disgusting as hell. Cutting off parts of your children for non-health related reasons, is the epitome of child abuse and I give zero fucks as to the reason.

[GodlyBob]

Then argue against circumcision. Don't argue for the much, much more severe FGM.

Again though, not all forms of female circumcision involve removing the clitoris in the same way that not all male circumcision involves only the removal of the foreskin. Both practices are on a spectrum and we can't just compare the 9 on one side to the 2 on the other in order to proclaim one practice better than the other. Both are harmful and only exist for aesthetical purposes so should be stopped. But it is disingenuous to ignore things like penile subincision when we're getting up in arms about labialectomy.

Here's the wiki about it with a few, very NSFW pictures of the results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_subincision

[Stormdash]

Its entire American toehold is due to the Christian sections wanting boys to not masturbate - The comparison is almost exactly spot on.
Also, FGM in the places where it is practiced, is virtually always done by women, for women - there is no patriarchal conspiracy, just girls mothers thinking they are doing the best thing for their daughters - So there is no venal or malicious purpose to it either.

Done by women, for women... to be suitable wives for future husbands. That fixes everything. Nice to see people tripping over themselves to demonstrate my point about rationalization.

What we are seeing is the cognitive dissonance of a faltering civilization. As recently as the late 90s, decidedly liberal shows like "Law & Order" or "The West Wing" still could do episodes either explicitly about FGM or condemning it in passing as the primitive savagery it is. This was before feminism had been knocked down several pegs on the ladder of legitimate grievance, though, so standing up for the dignity of women still trumped fear of being called xenophobic, islamophobic, or insufficiently multicultural. No more, clearly.

[Deleted]

Should we soften our approach to rape and murder because they keep happening?

No.

Same goes for genital mutilation. Anyone who feels it to be necessary because of ANY reasons, cultural or religious, is a thoroughly worthless pile of human garbage who should be treated as such, and the custom must be eradicated, no matter what representatives of primitive rape cultures might say about it.

Same goes for anyone who defends such practices because of cultural relativistic or w/e reasons. If you recognize yourselves, know that people like you are what's wrong in the world -- you are despicable, worthless scum and filth who deserve no respect.

[derpkitteh]

i'd rather us make laws that allow you to smash people's heads in with sledge hammers if they think this is an ok thing to do.

that'd be a better law.

[Deleted]

To be fair, there are different types of both female and male circumcision. Removal of the clitoris in women is dramatic, but so is subcision in males. There are direct parallels in harm if we're actually comparing similar procedures rather than just one, mostly benign type, or to one ostensibly harmful type.

This of course does not mean i'm in favor of allowing the procedure to be carried out on either males or females, but it's important to understand the implications, both extreme and moderate, of both.

Doesn't excuse the fact that any kind of genital mutilation is barbaric and should not be tolerated to the slightest degree in any society that dares to call itself civilized.

Protection from what? Do you often find yourself running around without pants or something?

You don't know much about how it works, do you? Were you circumcised yourself and now you defend the practice because you are too butthurt to admit that you feel incomplete, and that the people who did it to you were a bunch of worthless shitsacks?

[Stormdash]

You're really upset that someone had an opinion, aren't you?

I am upset at its wanton moral and intellectual cowardice.

[Calfredd]

i'd rather us make laws that allow you to smash people's heads in with sledge hammers if they think this is an ok thing to do.

that'd be a better law.

Legalize murder eh? I'm sure a few people could get behind that.

[Deleted]

Then argue against circumcision. Don't argue for the much, much more severe FGM.

Lets revisit the impetus for this discussion:

Because circumcision is drastically different? The foreskin isn't where sexual pleasure comes from for males.

The underlined, is the part we are talking about.
And in case you needed the hint, that statement is on par with Humorism for its medical accuracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Done by women, for women... to be suitable wives for future husbands. That fixes everything. Nice to see people tripping over themselves to demonstrate my point about rationalization.

Oh no, i find FMG distasteful, but its not done for malicious reasons.

[GodlyBob]

Doesn't excuse the fact that any kind of genital mutilation is barbaric and should not be tolerated to the slightest degree in any society that dares to call itself civilized.

I am emphatically against all forms of circumcision to children, I never said otherwise. I was however, pointing out that it is facetious to say there is no comparison between male and female circumcision.

If an adult wants to remove parts of their labia because they think it'll look better, I wouldn't say that I'd agree with the premise but that person should still be allowed to undergo the procedure in the same way a guy could opt to have plastic beads surgically implanted into his penis or somebody else might want to have their tongue split in half.

Part of being "civilized" should include consenting adults being able to do what they like with their own body or believe whatever they want provided it causes no harm to anybody else.

[derpkitteh]

Legalize murder eh? I'm sure a few people could get behind that.

maybe not murder... just severe brain damage.

[Theodarzna]

Then argue against circumcision. Don't argue for the much, much more severe FGM.

I think the point is we put our selves into a hypocritical stance of being totally against any and all forms of Female Circumcision, even relatively mild pricks or nicking that does no long term damage on absolutely moral grounds, but we are selectively okay with Male Circumcision as a widespread cultural practice on the grounds of "Well parents choice," or "Well its aesthetically pleasing," ect.

Some Female Circumcision is relatively harmless, though still backward, so is the male equivalent.

[Deleted]

Some Female Circumcision is relatively harmless, though still backward, so is the male equivalent.

Its really not.

[Theodarzna]

Its really not.

Generally altering someones body against there will is bad.

[Deleted]

maybe not murder... just severe brain damage.

I'm pretty sure that people who support genital mutilation already have brain damage. In which case... no harm done.

[Muadiib]

No of course we shouldn't soften our approach to female genital mutilation, it's barbaric and oppressive. Male circumcision is completely different and is absolutely fine. Personally I'm not circumcised as I'm not Jewish, but I have no problem with anyone that has had it done. It's supposed to be more hygienic at least.