Poll: Poll: If you ever have a daughter, will you have her circumcised?

[ComicsAreWeird]

Never. It´s barbaric. The fact that some people think otherwise is shocking.

 

[Shuswah_Noir]

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

There seem to be way to many people in this thread who aren't seeing that this isn't a religious thing, and that it is no way, shape, or form, the same thing as male circumcision.

This thread has actually made me realize that one of the charities that needs to be added to my list that I donate to regularly is one that combats issues like this. Much to my disgust I must have overlooked it.

Successful thread is successful.

I think there are a lot of similarities though. The magnitude if the suffering inflicted upon children is not what makes it right or wrong. The very fact of the suffering itself does that.

What similarities would that be?
The equivalent would be cutting off the entire dick, not just the foreskin. Medical reasons aside, as they are both redundant practices in my opinion, FGM is barbaric, male circumcision is cruel, but not nearly on the same level. The suffering is not a life time for a male, it is for a female.

What about if I only cut off a little bit of my daughters genitals? Is it ok then? She probably won't even notice.

You didn't answer my question.

And I already said I don't agree with male circumcision, so I hardly see what you meant to achieve with that comment.

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

You're still clearly missing the point. FGM removes sexual sensation, male circumcision does not. Even if 'it's only a little bit', it's not the same practice, not by a long shot. And even considering that they are is incredibly ignorant.

 

[Jonluw]

What!? No!

I will not perform an act of horrible genital mutilation on my offspring, are you insane?

"Yes, let's go ahead and cut of the clitoris and weld shut the labia so that nothing but pain can be derived from sex for my child in the future! Great idea!"

 

[BlindTom]

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

There seem to be way to many people in this thread who aren't seeing that this isn't a religious thing, and that it is no way, shape, or form, the same thing as male circumcision.

This thread has actually made me realize that one of the charities that needs to be added to my list that I donate to regularly is one that combats issues like this. Much to my disgust I must have overlooked it.

Successful thread is successful.

I think there are a lot of similarities though. The magnitude if the suffering inflicted upon children is not what makes it right or wrong. The very fact of the suffering itself does that.

What similarities would that be?
The equivalent would be cutting off the entire dick, not just the foreskin. Medical reasons aside, as they are both redundant practices in my opinion, FGM is barbaric, male circumcision is cruel, but not nearly on the same level. The suffering is not a life time for a male, it is for a female.

What about if I only cut off a little bit of my daughters genitals? Is it ok then? She probably won't even notice.

You didn't answer my question.

And I already said I don't agree with male circumcision, so I hardly see what you meant to achieve with that comment.

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

You're still clearly missing the point. FGM removes sexual sensation, male circumcision does not. Even if 'it's only a little bit', it's not the same practice, not by a long shot. And even considering that they are is incredibly ignorant.

It doesn't remove ALL of female sexual sensation any more than male genital mutilation removes ALL male sexual sensation.

 

[Woodsey]

So they mutilated your genitals for the sake of it?

At least religion is some sort of excuse. Not much of one at all, but at least its something. And no, if people think there's a benefit to it they can get it when they're old enough to make the choice themselves.

 

[Scabadus]

Unless there's a legitimate, urgent, medical reason for it, no I wouldn't cut up any children I have. I wouldn't cut off their fingers, I wouldn't cut off their head, and I wouldn't cut off their genitals.

Though if they want to get it done to themselves when they're old enough to understand the implications, sure. It's their body and their decision, I don't care.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

NO! Female circumcision does nothing but damage and removes sensitive, and sometimes necessary, parts of the human body. Male circumcision offer's no benefit either. The hygiene issue is no longer applicable because if you live somewhere where the doctor is good enough to properly circumcise you, you can shower at least once a week. If anything it offers less sensitivity during sex which personally I would see as a bad thing.

 

[Shuswah_Noir]

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

There seem to be way to many people in this thread who aren't seeing that this isn't a religious thing, and that it is no way, shape, or form, the same thing as male circumcision.

This thread has actually made me realize that one of the charities that needs to be added to my list that I donate to regularly is one that combats issues like this. Much to my disgust I must have overlooked it.

Successful thread is successful.

I think there are a lot of similarities though. The magnitude if the suffering inflicted upon children is not what makes it right or wrong. The very fact of the suffering itself does that.

What similarities would that be?
The equivalent would be cutting off the entire dick, not just the foreskin. Medical reasons aside, as they are both redundant practices in my opinion, FGM is barbaric, male circumcision is cruel, but not nearly on the same level. The suffering is not a life time for a male, it is for a female.

What about if I only cut off a little bit of my daughters genitals? Is it ok then? She probably won't even notice.

You didn't answer my question.

And I already said I don't agree with male circumcision, so I hardly see what you meant to achieve with that comment.

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

You're still clearly missing the point. FGM removes sexual sensation, male circumcision does not. Even if 'it's only a little bit', it's not the same practice, not by a long shot. And even considering that they are is incredibly ignorant.

It doesn't remove ALL of female sexual sensation any more than male genital mutilation removes ALL male sexual sensation.

I removes a damn site more than it does for a male.

Why are you trying to make this okay? It clearly isn't. And if you're trolling, you're not funny, your an ill informed sad pathetic little excuse for a human.

 

[Simon Pettersson]

I would never perform circumcision on any of my future children.
If they want to in the future they may do it them self. But why they would do that I don´t understand.

 

[BlindTom]

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

There seem to be way to many people in this thread who aren't seeing that this isn't a religious thing, and that it is no way, shape, or form, the same thing as male circumcision.

This thread has actually made me realize that one of the charities that needs to be added to my list that I donate to regularly is one that combats issues like this. Much to my disgust I must have overlooked it.

Successful thread is successful.

I think there are a lot of similarities though. The magnitude if the suffering inflicted upon children is not what makes it right or wrong. The very fact of the suffering itself does that.

What similarities would that be?
The equivalent would be cutting off the entire dick, not just the foreskin. Medical reasons aside, as they are both redundant practices in my opinion, FGM is barbaric, male circumcision is cruel, but not nearly on the same level. The suffering is not a life time for a male, it is for a female.

What about if I only cut off a little bit of my daughters genitals? Is it ok then? She probably won't even notice.

You didn't answer my question.

And I already said I don't agree with male circumcision, so I hardly see what you meant to achieve with that comment.

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

You're still clearly missing the point. FGM removes sexual sensation, male circumcision does not. Even if 'it's only a little bit', it's not the same practice, not by a long shot. And even considering that they are is incredibly ignorant.

It doesn't remove ALL of female sexual sensation any more than male genital mutilation removes ALL male sexual sensation.

I removes a damn site more than it does for a male.

Why are you trying to make this okay? It clearly isn't. And if you're trolling, you're not funny, your an ill informed sad pathetic little excuse for a human.

I'm not trying to make it ok. Why do you get that impression?

Allow me to rephrase an earlier question. Why does the severity of the damage dictate anything? Surely genital mutilation is genital mutilation right? If you have an opinion on mutilating one sex you must be consistent when applying that opinion to the other right?

Anyway I have to go to my queer theory class now.

 

[Simon Pettersson]

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

There seem to be way to many people in this thread who aren't seeing that this isn't a religious thing, and that it is no way, shape, or form, the same thing as male circumcision.

This thread has actually made me realize that one of the charities that needs to be added to my list that I donate to regularly is one that combats issues like this. Much to my disgust I must have overlooked it.

Successful thread is successful.

I think there are a lot of similarities though. The magnitude if the suffering inflicted upon children is not what makes it right or wrong. The very fact of the suffering itself does that.

What similarities would that be?
The equivalent would be cutting off the entire dick, not just the foreskin. Medical reasons aside, as they are both redundant practices in my opinion, FGM is barbaric, male circumcision is cruel, but not nearly on the same level. The suffering is not a life time for a male, it is for a female.

What about if I only cut off a little bit of my daughters genitals? Is it ok then? She probably won't even notice.

You didn't answer my question.

And I already said I don't agree with male circumcision, so I hardly see what you meant to achieve with that comment.

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

You're still clearly missing the point. FGM removes sexual sensation, male circumcision does not. Even if 'it's only a little bit', it's not the same practice, not by a long shot. And even considering that they are is incredibly ignorant.

It doesn't remove ALL of female sexual sensation any more than male genital mutilation removes ALL male sexual sensation.

You must be joking!

Female circumcision removes a bit of the clitoris, not the labia.
Then they sew it up so that nothing´s gonna get in there.
Guess what happens on the wedding night!? But not only that often it is performed without medical training in a dirty environment.

 

[Shuswah_Noir]

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

There seem to be way to many people in this thread who aren't seeing that this isn't a religious thing, and that it is no way, shape, or form, the same thing as male circumcision.

This thread has actually made me realize that one of the charities that needs to be added to my list that I donate to regularly is one that combats issues like this. Much to my disgust I must have overlooked it.

Successful thread is successful.

I think there are a lot of similarities though. The magnitude if the suffering inflicted upon children is not what makes it right or wrong. The very fact of the suffering itself does that.

What similarities would that be?
The equivalent would be cutting off the entire dick, not just the foreskin. Medical reasons aside, as they are both redundant practices in my opinion, FGM is barbaric, male circumcision is cruel, but not nearly on the same level. The suffering is not a life time for a male, it is for a female.

What about if I only cut off a little bit of my daughters genitals? Is it ok then? She probably won't even notice.

You didn't answer my question.

And I already said I don't agree with male circumcision, so I hardly see what you meant to achieve with that comment.

I answered your question. The similarity is that they are both genital mutilation. Just because one is worse than the other doesn't mean they aren't ultimately both the same disgusting practice.

You're still clearly missing the point. FGM removes sexual sensation, male circumcision does not. Even if 'it's only a little bit', it's not the same practice, not by a long shot. And even considering that they are is incredibly ignorant.

It doesn't remove ALL of female sexual sensation any more than male genital mutilation removes ALL male sexual sensation.

I removes a damn site more than it does for a male.

Why are you trying to make this okay? It clearly isn't. And if you're trolling, you're not funny, your an ill informed sad pathetic little excuse for a human.

I'm not trying to make it ok. Why do you get that impression?

Allow me to rephrase an earlier question. Why does the severity of the damage dictate anything? Surely genital mutilation is genital mutilation right? If you have an opinion on mutilating one sex you must be consistent when applying that opinion to the other right?

Anyway I have to go to my queer theory class now.

You're defending a horrific practice by comparing it to a common practice that has essentially no long term repercussions for the person it's done to. They aren't the same thing. Circumcision isn't genital mutation when put next to FGM. It's a redundant medical practice that really needs to be regulated properly, but it is not FGM.
In a world where things to benefit men are usually put first, circumcision would be illegal if it were equivalent to FGM. I'm not saying that because I'm a feminist, because I'm not. I'm saying it because it's what I see (I site that in Australia, there is GST on feminine hygiene products but not on condoms).
And since when has anything like that been consistent? You're talking about a practice coming from countries that blame women when they get raped. You cannot apply that kind of logic to this when you look at the whole picture.

 

[Shuswah_Noir]

for men, circumsision is a matter of hygiene: it's not necessary, but it's more hygienic.

for women, there is zero advantage to being circumcised, and in fact poses many health risks during the operation.
i would die before i let anyone touch my daughter with a knife in that place for no good reason whatsoever.

This is true. If I've got my facts straight, circumcision for men is really only a health benefit if anything. But circumcision for women can be very detrimental and unsafe.

It's not just a coincidence that there are more groups against female circumcision then there are against male circumcision.

i didn't say not being circumcised is unhygienic. i said being circumcised is more hygienic.
that's why i find male circumcision tolerable, while i find female circumcision to be unethical.

for men, circumcision is a matter of hygiene: it's not necessary, but it's more hygienic.

It's more hygienic the same way being scalped is more hygienic. Because hey - less hair to wash!

that is why lots of women shave themselves in their intimate places. not to please men, but because it's cleaner.
so they're both hygienic, let's look at the other points:
shaving: possible chance of irritated skin.
circumcision: maiming of genitals, with a chance of infection.
not trying to sound racist, but as OP stated, this practice is popular in africa. is africa known for it's top-notch hospitals?

It's often not practiced by medical professionals. Usually a sharp rock while the victim is being held down. So hospitals don't come into it.

 

[EonEire]

for men, circumsision is a matter of hygiene: it's not necessary, but it's more hygienic.

I have to disagree there, I'm not circumcised and its only unhygienic if you are lazy it takes possibly 6 seconds extra in the shower, that's it.

Thats not what he means. >_> Its much easier to avoid getting infections if you are circumsized. I highly doubt he meant how long it takes you to wash the damn thing...

Then I assume he would have wrote that there is less chance of infections, hygiene to me means everyday hygiene shower, teeth ect. Infections as far as I am aware only occur more often with cases of phimosis mild / extreme due to the increased risk of tearing, a normal foreskin never causes tearing during intercourse.

 

[mirasiel]

No more than I would do it to my son.

 

[BabyRaptor]

I don't like it. And as I said, if by some distortion in the very fabric of reality, I reproduce, I will avoid interaction with my child's genitalia in any and every way.

How do you plan to go about toilet training the kid then?

On topic: Fuck no. There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for female circumcision.

 

[Griffolion]

No, just no.

Circumcision should only be done in cases where not doing it poses a threat to health.

 

[Lilani]

for men, circumsision is a matter of hygiene: it's not necessary, but it's more hygienic.

for women, there is zero advantage to being circumcised, and in fact poses many health risks during the operation.
i would die before i let anyone touch my daughter with a knife in that place for no good reason whatsoever.

This is true. If I've got my facts straight, circumcision for men is really only a health benefit if anything. But circumcision for women can be very detrimental and unsafe.

It's not just a coincidence that there are more groups against female circumcision then there are against male circumcision.

i didn't say not being circumcised is unhygienic. i said being circumcised is more hygienic.
that's why i find male circumcision tolerable, while i find female circumcision to be unethical.

Why, yes. I was agreeing with you there, mate ;-) I was restating that if anything, male circumcision is a health benefit, while female circumcision has no benefits and can only be detrimental.