82% of Egyptian Woman Have Had Genitals Mutilated

[Deleted]

Yes there are. It reduces the risk of bacterial infection. And while such infections are easier to deal with using modern medicine, there are still cases where circumcision becomes necessary to treat such and infection.

Also, circumcision has been shown to reduce the transmission of stds.



True. There is a very big difference. And not just in the size of the organ. For an adult/teen it's an embarrassing and painful procedure, normally preceded by an embarrassing and painful infection. For a baby it's a tiny thing that hurts briefly (a few minutes) and then they forget about. Also the risk of complications/loss of sensation is significantly reduced if it's done as an infant.

Obviously, in an ideal world, male circumcision would never be necessary. But in cases where it does become necessary, it would have far better to have it done as an infant. In the end it's a risk/tradeoff. Undergo a very minor procedure with negligible risk of long term effects, or risk the chance of a more serious procedure with bigger side effects later.



Don't be absurd. There are very few parents who will do this on a whim. Even if you can convince yourself that the reasons parents use are not valid, the parents in question do tend to believe that they are valid and that people like you are ignorant.

Nope no reason what so ever, and that thing about infections.. Your arm can get infected too, better cut it off at birth!?

It doesn't hurt infants as bad? Are you mad?? And its not a "minor" procedure, every procedure where you cut in a baby is very high risk. Babies doe not have as much blood and they can't lose much of it before it gets really dangerous. Besides that there is also the problem of "dying babies", this wont happen as fast to a grown up.

Cultural reasons aren't valid reasons, no matter how valid the parents think.

[Raelbo]

All of this is incorrect, and proven so

- read the research (I have provided links and those have references to actual medical texts), not the myth or your assumptions on the subject

Phimosis is a rare issue that is better treated with steroid creams than circumcision, and there is no other medical benefit - at all

It's a cultural surgery, like FGM

I read your entire article. It does not disprove anything I wrote above.

For example, they don't go into the exact reasons circumcisions started in the first place - 6000 years ago. Yes, I realise that a lot of people look at religious/cultural practices and dismiss them as stupid, without ever stopping to consider the context in which those practices started. People back then may not have had the knowledge we have today, but that doesn't mean they were stupid. They didn't just start snipping of foreskins without a good reason, and back then it was pretty much about the believe that it was more hygeinic.

FGM was never about the health of the woman (perceived or otherwise). It was entirely about controlling women.


I don't think you even bothered to process the few lines I wrote. Also, have you ever bothered to read the other side of the argument? I suspect not.

[Deleted]

I read your entire article. It does not disprove anything I wrote above.

For example, they don't go into the exact reasons circumcisions started in the first place - 6000 years ago. Yes, I realise that a lot of people look at religious/cultural practices and dismiss them as stupid, without ever stopping to consider the context in which those practices started. People back then may not have had the knowledge we have today, but that doesn't mean they were stupid. They didn't just start snipping of foreskins without a good reason, and back then it was pretty much about the believe that it was more hygeinic.

FGM was never about the health of the woman (perceived or otherwise). It was entirely about controlling women.


I don't think you even bothered to process the few lines I wrote. Also, have you ever bothered to read the other side of the argument? I suspect not.

You clearly did not read the article

It directly addresses your points and shows that everything you're writing is wrong

Go back, and read the article, stop being ignorant

[SandMax]

FGM was never about the health of the woman (perceived or otherwise). It was entirely about controlling women.

Same deal with male circumcision. Also even if foreskin removal slightly decreases infection rates on penis, that is vastly overweigthed by the long list of adverse side effects, and most importantly person right to be NOT MUTILATED (unless medically absolutely neccesary for infant).

For all the same reasons why FGM is illegal, so should be male genital mutilation too.

Both are barbaric acts based on fucked up culture, we need to stop that nonsense hurting people.

[Faenskap]

Wait... what exactly do they mutilate and how? Serious question, never even heard of this.

Why - cultural practice, peer pressure to getting it done, harder to find a man if you're not cut, to control a woman's sexuality, they believe it looks better

How - depends on country. In Egypt you typically get a medical professional to do it while under anasthetics. They don't cut away as much. In Somalia, it's completely opposite. They cut clitoris and labia minora then sitch labia majora together, so there is just a little hole for pee/blood/discharge. This is also done without pain relief and with equippment like rusty razors or glass. Having a period while stiched like this is appearantly extrmely painful (which they believe is good - it's done properly then) and peeing takes 10 minutes.

There are illustrations and photos on google. Terrifying photos, honestly

On topic: I do believe males should be able to make the choice for themselves when they are 18, and not having it done on them while babies and thus unable to consent.

However there are big differences between the two practices, and FGM is extremely brutal, especially the Somali style one

[Karon]

Wrong lol. There are medical purposes for circumcision.

The biggest reason is to prevent infections because the guy is too retarded to wash his dick.

No wonder it's so popular in the US.

[Raelbo]

All of this is false, you're ignorant of medical evidence and clearly unwilling to let facts get in the way of your assumptions and myths, like a creationist - or indeed a supporter of FGM

Unlike you, I have researched both sides of this argument. If anything you're guilty of what you accuse me of. You have chosen a viewpoint and choose the evidence to fit your viewpoint. I have done the opposite - looked at both arguments and drawn my own conclusions.

The fact that your argument relies on things like false equivalences (comparing FGM to male circumcision when clearly one is a significantly worse than the other and clearly they are practiced for completely different reasons) and exaggerations just serves to undermine your argument.

Things I can accept:
1) The medical benefits of male circumcision have in the past been grossly overstated
2) Routine circumcision of male infants might not be the best practice

I am not convinced by your one-sided, unbalanced and very biased argument that there is no potential medical benefit to infant circumcision. I am not convinced that the harm done to males who have undergone infant circumcision is in any way significant.

The way I see it, there are long term risks associated with electing to either have an infant circumcised or not. But in both cases the risks are small. When medical professions are divided over the best course of action, I don't really see a point in arguing over this, rather than just accepting it's a matter of personal choice.

The same cannot be said for FGM. It's a heinous, barbaric act with sinister motives, massive negative for the victims and absolutely no justification. If you want to say that male circumcision is essentially the same, then sorry, that makes you a blind zealot.

- - - Updated - - -

You clearly did not read the article

It directly addresses your points and shows that everything you're writing is wrong

Go back, and read the article, stop being ignorant

Xarim, go and read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on...oon_%28film%29

It proves that you are wrong and I am right. I don't need to explain, it just does. If you can't figure it out you're ignorant. Thanks.

[Deleted]

Unlike you, I have researched both sides of this argument. If anything you're guilty of what you accuse me of. You have chosen a viewpoint and choose the evidence to fit your viewpoint. I have done the opposite - looked at both arguments and drawn my own conclusions.

The fact that your argument relies on things like false equivalences (comparing FGM to male circumcision when clearly one is a significantly worse than the other and clearly they are practiced for completely different reasons) and exaggerations just serves to undermine your argument.

Things I can accept:
1) The medical benefits of male circumcision have in the past been grossly overstated
2) Routine circumcision of male infants might not be the best practice

I am not convinced by your one-sided, unbalanced and very biased argument that there is no potential medical benefit to infant circumcision. I am not convinced that the harm done to males who have undergone infant circumcision is in any way significant.

The way I see it, there are long term risks associated with electing to either have an infant circumcised or not. But in both cases the risks are small. When medical professions are divided over the best course of action, I don't really see a point in arguing over this, rather than just accepting it's a matter of personal choice.

The same cannot be said for FGM. It's a heinous, barbaric act with sinister motives, massive negative for the victims and absolutely no justification. If you want to say that male circumcision is essentially the same, then sorry, that makes you a blind zealot.

I give up: you will choose to stay ignorant regardless of how many sources I provide, while you provide none except your own incorrect statements and assumptions (and possibly irrelevant links when you run out of actual arguments)

The next time you critique an Egyptian FGM supporter, realise you're the same as they are: you blindly adhere to the cultural norms with which you were brought up, and defend them against medical evidence using unequal standards of proof to support your pre-existing bias

[khalltusk]

snip.

How is Male circumcision when not required on medical grounds any different? You perform the surgery on someone with out their consent, and unnecessary surgery at that. If its done on an infant due to an illness and its the best treatment for it at that time then sure go ahead. Otherwise there is NO need to have this surgery performed.

[zorkuus]

These threads are a hoot. It always comes down to one thing once all the other bs has been destroyed: it should be a pre-emptive medical procedure. When do we ever do this on any other issue? Is cutting the appendix pre-emptively something we do on a regular basis for example?

Stop being lazy and wash your penis, that solves 99% of the potential problems.

[Raelbo]

I give up: you will choose to stay ignorant regardless of how many sources I provide, while you provide none except your own incorrect statements and assumptions (and possibly irrelevant links when you run out of actual arguments)

This debate has been had numerous times on this forum, and those times I bothered to go and find sources, which you, among others, chose to ignore. I have at least made a case for myself based on multiple viewpoints whereas you lazily found one source supporting your view and essentially ignored the other side of the argument. And yet you have the audacity to call me ignorant? pfft.

The next time you critique an Egyptian FGM supporter, realise you're the same as they are: you blindly adhere to the cultural norms with which you were brought up, and defend them against medical evidence using unequal standards of proof to support your pre-existing bias

Ok, whatever. I don't think you actually understood my argument because you're so blinded by your own zeal.

[Goradan]

Most of those countries are Islamic.

The grey areas with 0% mutilation are not Islamic.

So no, it's not African.

Phew Good thing Ghana and Togo have a low number of FGM count. I have family there.

- - - Updated - - -

These threads are a hoot. It always comes down to one thing once all the other bs has been destroyed: it should be a pre-emptive medical procedure. When do we ever do this on any other issue? Is cutting the appendix pre-emptively something we do on a regular basis for example?

Stop being lazy and wash your penis, that solves 99% of the potential problems.

And no one wants to suck a dirty dick.

[SandMax]

This debate has been had numerous times on this forum, and those times I bothered to go and find sources, which you, among others, chose to ignore. I have at least made a case for myself based on multiple viewpoints whereas you lazily found one source supporting your view and essentially ignored the other side of the argument. And yet you have the audacity to call me ignorant? pfft.



Ok, whatever. I don't think you actually understood my argument because you're so blinded by your own zeal.

Here on more civilized parts of the world, male circumcision is not even done by public sector and most doctors decline doing it altogether because of religious reasons. Consensus among doctors is that there are very few medical reasons to do it, and it should absolutely not be routine operation.

[Deleted]

I am not convinced by your one-sided, unbalanced and very biased argument that there is no potential medical benefit to infant circumcision. I am not convinced that the harm done to males who have undergone infant circumcision is in any way significant.

Xarim, go and read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on...oon_%28film%29

It proves that you are wrong and I am right. I don't need to explain, it just does. If you can't figure it out you're ignorant. Thanks.

Oh i did not realize that death or loss off use is insignificant, these are things that happen during some circumcisions. And it is mainly done to inhibit sexual pleasure, so i would call that very significant.

Your link isn't an "article" in any sense of the word, its a wiki about a film. You do need to explain your self, calling other people ignorant because they do not understand the ravings of a mad man is rather rich.

[Raelbo]

These threads are a hoot. It always comes down to one thing once all the other bs has been destroyed: it should be a pre-emptive medical procedure. When do we ever do this on any other issue? Is cutting the appendix pre-emptively something we do on a regular basis for example?

This is an example of false equivalence since an appendicectomy is a significantly more invasive and risky surgery.

I'll give you a good example though: Vaccinations. We pre-emptively vaccinate children, sticking them with needles and injecting foreign organisms into their bodies in the belief that on balance, more good will come from the vaccination process than the harm.

From what I have seen most kids "suffer" as a result of the many vaccinations they undergo far more than from a male circumcision.

The biggest difference I see between the two is that in the case of vaccination there is no question as to whether it's beneficial, while the jury is still very much divided on the question of circumcision.

Stop being lazy and wash your penis, that solves 99% of the potential problems.

This sounds a lot like an ad hominen mixed with "it can't happen to me" syndrome.

[Granyala]

He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation

Yeah .. erm....
Sorry to break it to you (and Kellogg I guess), but I know from personal experience that it doesn't work.

It was done to me because of medical reasons at a rather young age. Never really hindered me in any way.

Most certainly not comparable to senselessly cutting off sensitive lady-parts w/o anesthesia.
Also, dat Article from @Fencers ... doing it because of "societal pressure" oh man.
Human idiocy at it's finest.

[Dezerte]

Where is the evidence? You are paranoid as fuck.

Are Americans that much more likely to have problems with their foreskin that it warrants such prevalent usage? Most of Europe the practice is almost unheard of, and there is no increase in health problems due to this. That seems like evidence enough to me.

[zorkuus]

This is an example of false equivalence since an appendicectomy is a significantly more invasive and risky surgery.

I'll give you a good example though: Vaccinations. We pre-emptively vaccinate children, sticking them with needles and injecting foreign organisms into their bodies in the belief that on balance, more good will come from the vaccination process than the harm.

From what I have seen most kids "suffer" as a result of the many vaccinations they undergo far more than from a male circumcision.

The biggest difference I see between the two is that in the case of vaccination there is no question as to whether it's beneficial, while the jury is still very much divided on the question of circumcision.

"false equivalence"

Continues to compare surgery to vaccinations. I knew I would get a humorous response to my post.

From what I have seen most kids "suffer" as a result of the many vaccinations they undergo far more than from a male circumcision.

Where? Who? How? Don't tell me your anti-vac too...

[Raelbo]

Oh i did not realize that death or loss off use is insignificant, these are things that happen during some circumcisions.

Extremely low probability outcomes. Funnily enough these things can also happen due to an infection in uncircumcised men.....

And it is mainly done to inhibit sexual pleasure, so i would call that very significant.

Firstly, it is not proven to inhibit sexual pleasure. While it is undeniable that nerve endings are lost, there is no evidence to suggest that it actually affects pleasure during intercourse. This is probably because sensations are processed in the brain, not the penis.

Your link isn't an "article" in any sense of the word, its a wiki about a film. You do need to explain your self, calling other people ignorant because they do not understand the ravings of a mad man is rather rich.

Hey, if Xarim doesn't have to demonstrate how his article proves his case, neither do I!

[zorkuus]

Extremely low probability outcomes. Funnily enough these things can also happen due to an infection in uncircumcised men.....

Do you know what's the most common source for infection? Bad personal hygiene. You know... that thing that can be prevented without surgery.