I don't see the point in male or female circumsizing, unless it was to keep infections at bay. The body shouldn't be carved up like that IMO. so no.
Poll: Poll: If you ever have a daughter, will you have her circumcised?
- Thread starter BlindTom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, Op, if I hadn't read your post, I'd be calling you horrible names just about now for even making this poll and seemingly considering female circumsion a valid decision.
And that, I think, is strong enough an indication of my opinion on the matter.
That it is. And really, the exact same arguments could be made in favor of chopping the head of your penis off. I mean, males still have their prostate and it's perfectly possible to achieve orgasm and otherwise function anyhow!
And that, I think, is strong enough an indication of my opinion on the matter.
HG131 said:
That it is. And really, the exact same arguments could be made in favor of chopping the head of your penis off. I mean, males still have their prostate and it's perfectly possible to achieve orgasm and otherwise function anyhow!
Exactly. I don't see how male circumcision doesn't fall under equal protection. Female circumcision is banned federally but male circumcision isn't. Either they should both be legal or they should both be illegal.OldRat said:
Personally, I'm gonna chop off the tip of the left pinky.
It's not normal for girls, there is no reason do it and it it gives zero advantage, just beacuse it's "normal" there is no reason to scar a child for life. Femal circumcision is not an option outside of africa, it's called mutilation here and it's not something doctors will do to a baby let alone a child as according to the WHO it's mostly done on girls 4-8. Doesn't that fact it's illegal in alot of places as well kinda point out that it's not a good thing at all.
Hell depending on how much they chop away and sew back up you may naver have a natural birth and it can contribute to the death of a the child.
But seriously I would never want that done to me as a girl why the hell would i let anyone near my child to do that...
Hell depending on how much they chop away and sew back up you may naver have a natural birth and it can contribute to the death of a the child.
But seriously I would never want that done to me as a girl why the hell would i let anyone near my child to do that...
Exactly what I was thinking. Just the idea of mutilating some poor child's genitals (female OR male) sickens me.thylasos said:
Yeah, see, the rest of the world considers the practice of "female circumcision" that's culturally sanctioned in Africa (and parts of southeast Asia, a few other places) to be barbaric mutilation of a woman's genitals practiced for entirely misogynistic reasons. Comparing what is inflicted upon those poor women to male circumcision is entirely disingenuous - the pervasive nature of female circumcision, or female genital mutilation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting] as us Westerners normally refer to it (because that's what it is) on the African continent is evidence of systemic institutionalized abuse, nothing less.
Imagine for a moment if you will that when you go to the doctor (or are taken as an infant) to be circumcised, instead of performing a 'relatively benign' procedure (however pointless it might ultimately be, that's another discussion entirely) they just chop off your damn penis. Wincing in sympathetic agony yet? Hard to imagine that medical procedure becoming a common practice isn't it? Well guess what - hacking off the old block and tackle, as horrible a prospect as that sounds to most guys, is in fact the closest analog to what is commonly done to underage girls without their consent: "female circumcision" is cutting off a ladies genitals, and in about 10% of cases is then followed by crudely sewing her vagina almost entirely shut, leaving just a small opening to pee through.
No, the motivation behind it is some ridiculous notion of "purity" that you can logically only instill in young ladies by cutting their sex bits off and sewing them shut, with practitioners often claiming a religious basis for performing those mutilations. Funny thing about that though, religious authorities can't stress enough that they absolutely do not support the practice - for instance, the highest religious authority in Egypt issued a statement saying that FGM has no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions, and that it is harmful and should not be practiced.
With that in mind, I shall now be exercising my provided option to fling crap at the OP for even bloody asking a horrible question like that - you might as well ask us "Would you gouge out your firstborn son's eyes for basically no reason?" or "How do you feel about throwing acid on your wife's face so she won't start cheating on you because now she's too ugly for anyone else to want to sleep with?". Female genital mutilation is an awful bit of cultural detritus that needs stamped out yesterday - nobody who is in their right mind should ever consider doing something like that to their own flesh and blood; if you ever need evidence of just how asinine it is when our multiculturalism revering educational establishments tell you that "You can't judge other cultures!", female genital mutilation is there to point out that "No, actually you absolutely can (and should) do that - just because something is 'cultural' doesn't mean it isn't bloody WRONG".
Imagine for a moment if you will that when you go to the doctor (or are taken as an infant) to be circumcised, instead of performing a 'relatively benign' procedure (however pointless it might ultimately be, that's another discussion entirely) they just chop off your damn penis. Wincing in sympathetic agony yet? Hard to imagine that medical procedure becoming a common practice isn't it? Well guess what - hacking off the old block and tackle, as horrible a prospect as that sounds to most guys, is in fact the closest analog to what is commonly done to underage girls without their consent: "female circumcision" is cutting off a ladies genitals, and in about 10% of cases is then followed by crudely sewing her vagina almost entirely shut, leaving just a small opening to pee through.
[HEADING=2]There is no medical reason to ever do something like that.[/HEADING]
No, the motivation behind it is some ridiculous notion of "purity" that you can logically only instill in young ladies by cutting their sex bits off and sewing them shut, with practitioners often claiming a religious basis for performing those mutilations. Funny thing about that though, religious authorities can't stress enough that they absolutely do not support the practice - for instance, the highest religious authority in Egypt issued a statement saying that FGM has no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions, and that it is harmful and should not be practiced.
With that in mind, I shall now be exercising my provided option to fling crap at the OP for even bloody asking a horrible question like that - you might as well ask us "Would you gouge out your firstborn son's eyes for basically no reason?" or "How do you feel about throwing acid on your wife's face so she won't start cheating on you because now she's too ugly for anyone else to want to sleep with?". Female genital mutilation is an awful bit of cultural detritus that needs stamped out yesterday - nobody who is in their right mind should ever consider doing something like that to their own flesh and blood; if you ever need evidence of just how asinine it is when our multiculturalism revering educational establishments tell you that "You can't judge other cultures!", female genital mutilation is there to point out that "No, actually you absolutely can (and should) do that - just because something is 'cultural' doesn't mean it isn't bloody WRONG".
No i won't ... i don't believe circumcision of women is right .. it is IMO mutilation to a very sensitive part of their bodies .. literally cutting their flesh .. i don't think it even has much religion grounds .. it is more or less a bad habit since ancient times in communities with strict moral codes in which men traveled away for months or years for war or trading and left their wives alone for too long (as far as i know circumcision of females does reduce their sexual drive or even in extreme cases makes them unwilling to have sex altogether).
As for circumcision of men .. it is different .. technically it is cutting a bit of extra skin .. i think it is actually useful from a medical point of view as many researches around the world indicated .. and many religions recommend/demand it clearly .. and for good reasons .. i'm circumcised myself and i never had any problems of any kind.
And in case you are wondering .. i'm Muslim .. an Egyptian Muslim ^_^
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
http://www.health.am/sex/more/male-circumcision-fends-off-the-most-common-stds/
2-thousands of male children all over the world get circumcised every day .. never heard of any reoccurring complications of any sort .. it is the norm in many countries to circumcise males and most of the male population in Muslim countries are circumcised (millions of males .. and that's just the Muslims)... you are just talking nonsense.
3-It is done on infants cause it is much easier to do it at that state of growth of the genitalia .. and without anesthesia becasue anesthesia is dangerous to infants and should only be used in extreme case like full-on surgeries .. the dangers of anesthesia are far more than any temp pain the infant will experience .. pain they will forget about in few days like millions before them .. it might seem harsh but the benefits are more than worth it.
As for circumcision of men .. it is different .. technically it is cutting a bit of extra skin .. i think it is actually useful from a medical point of view as many researches around the world indicated .. and many religions recommend/demand it clearly .. and for good reasons .. i'm circumcised myself and i never had any problems of any kind.
And in case you are wondering .. i'm Muslim .. an Egyptian Muslim ^_^
Because technically they aren't the same (male case you remove a bit of extra skin / female case you cut-off a bit of their clotris flesh and some extreme cases even cut parts of the labia and remove the clotris altogether .. yuck) .. and there are medically proven benefits for male circumcision ... there isn't for female circumcision ... you can't equate them in any way or form.Dags90 said:
1-No .. the benefits of male circumcision aren't redundant nor are they myths .. they are real medical facts ... you need to read more about this subject .. but i agree .. female circumcision has no benefits at all and should be banned.Elric Randall said:
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
http://www.health.am/sex/more/male-circumcision-fends-off-the-most-common-stds/
2-thousands of male children all over the world get circumcised every day .. never heard of any reoccurring complications of any sort .. it is the norm in many countries to circumcise males and most of the male population in Muslim countries are circumcised (millions of males .. and that's just the Muslims)... you are just talking nonsense.
3-It is done on infants cause it is much easier to do it at that state of growth of the genitalia .. and without anesthesia becasue anesthesia is dangerous to infants and should only be used in extreme case like full-on surgeries .. the dangers of anesthesia are far more than any temp pain the infant will experience .. pain they will forget about in few days like millions before them .. it might seem harsh but the benefits are more than worth it.
Both types of circumcision( if you want to call FGM that. I often refer to FGM as circumcision because that's the first way I heard it, and it kinda stuck in my head.) are wrong and neither have objective benefits. The female type is way way worse than the male type,no doubts about it. They should both be stopped because modifications of their severity shouldn't be forced on anyone( fgm shouldn't even be a choice tbh . Male circ, while I think it is unnecessary, can be a choice for an adult man to have done to himself).
Oh and my answer to the poll was "no" but with lots of swearing for emphasis.
Oh and my answer to the poll was "no" but with lots of swearing for emphasis.
Well, it's more "hygenic" in the same way that shaving your head is more hygenic. It will also cut out the risk of getting cancer of the foreskin in much the same way as cutting off your ears would stop you getting ear cancer. Also if you're stupid enough to go round shagging without a condom there is a small drop in the likelihood of catching certain STD's. Basically there are some very minor health benefits that are achieved 1000% more effectively by things that you should be doing anyway in the modern world (washing and wearing a condom). There are some specific medical conditions that circumcision will cure but other than that it is only of cultural value.GeorgW said:
As for female cicumcision, if she wanted to get labiaplasty...well that's her decision and I wouldn't really want to know about it anyway, otherwise no.
Fuck no, man. That's like like taking a cleaver to a baby boy's nads. There are something's that you need down there, and a clitoris is one of those.
No it isn't. The skin isn't "extra" anymore than a pinkie is an "extra" finger.Hunter.Wolf said:
To you and the person who called me a lunatic, any sort of non medically necessary female genital procedure is illegal under current U.S. federal law. Circumcision is generally not medically necessary, benefits or not. Here is the word for word federal statute.
They even refer to it as "circumcision" and specify that any unnecessary cutting is illegal. It's a pretty cut and dry Equal Protection muck up.