FGM vs MGM
Apparently we should never compare these two practices but I can see absolutely no reason why this should be the case.
While FGM in most forms is far more damaging than MGM some forms are pretty much the same thing. Not all forms of FGM involve removing the clitoris yet all forms of FGM are rightly illegal including those that are very much comparable to MGM.
Avoiding this comparison seems to be doing nothing but reinforcing the myth that FGM is the removal of the clitoris and nothing else, this is dangerous and could lead to victims of FGM wrongly believing they're not victims and not protected by the law and of course it does nothing to help prevent MGM.
So can anyone explain why we shouldn't compare these two and why the clitoral hood should be protected by law while the foreskin shouldn't?
While FGM in most forms is far more damaging than MGM some forms are pretty much the same thing. Not all forms of FGM involve removing the clitoris yet all forms of FGM are rightly illegal including those that are very much comparable to MGM.
Avoiding this comparison seems to be doing nothing but reinforcing the myth that FGM is the removal of the clitoris and nothing else, this is dangerous and could lead to victims of FGM wrongly believing they're not victims and not protected by the law and of course it does nothing to help prevent MGM.
So can anyone explain why we shouldn't compare these two and why the clitoral hood should be protected by law while the foreskin shouldn't?
(edited 6 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Q - "Why the clitoral hood should be protected by law while the foreskin shouldn't?"
A - Feminist lobby and disposable men and boys in that order.
A - Feminist lobby and disposable men and boys in that order.
(edited 6 years ago)
Because of systemic sexism against males.
Original post by Just my opinion
Q - "Why the clitoral hood should be protected by law while the foreskin shouldn't?"
A - Feminist lobby and disposable men and boys in that order.
A - Feminist lobby and disposable men and boys in that order.
Why would feminists lobby for MGM?
Both should be protected by law. I suspect the reason the foreskin isn't is that MGM is condoned by the Bible, whereas FGM isn't, and the Bible is still the most commonly revered religious text here in Britain.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Both should be protected by law
This.
Original post by anosmianAcrimony
Both should be protected by law. I suspect the reason the foreskin isn't is that MGM is condoned by the Bible, whereas FGM isn't, and the Bible is still the most commonly revered religious text here in Britain.
Strange one to hang on to and circumcision in Britain has until quite recently been mostly a matter of class rather than religion, maybe the Queens choice to mutilate her sons plays a part?
This was a very interesting read on the matter:
https://aeon.co/essays/are-male-and-female-circumcision-morally-equivalent
https://aeon.co/essays/are-male-and-female-circumcision-morally-equivalent
I think all bodily integrity should (with the exception of immediate life threatening illness) be preserved. I can't see an ethical argument against this that isn't based on some sort of really REALLY bad understanding of human anatomy.
One explanation for the distinction is underlying racism. FGM is almost exclusively practiced by peoples in Africa (and even there, only really north of the Equator), while MGM is considerably more culturally widespread, including in the Western world (though still more common in Africa).
The other explanation of it is that, at least in the developed world, MGM is somewhat safer and less severe.
Personally, I'm opposed to either being permitted for children under at least the age of 16 (i.e. the age of consent)*. And after that, the government should maintain some sort of standard of certification for doctors or others who can be counted on to perform the procedure as safely and hygienically as possible.
* I can imagine one potential half-exception to this - where an underage adolescent, of their own accord, demands it be done (for whatever reason), and the certified circumciser asked has a well-founded fear that the child will try to do it themselves if denied, and so carries it out safely based on that belief. I wouldn't want that entirely legal, but at the same time I'd be uncomfortable with prosecuting someone in such a situation.
The other explanation of it is that, at least in the developed world, MGM is somewhat safer and less severe.
Personally, I'm opposed to either being permitted for children under at least the age of 16 (i.e. the age of consent)*. And after that, the government should maintain some sort of standard of certification for doctors or others who can be counted on to perform the procedure as safely and hygienically as possible.
* I can imagine one potential half-exception to this - where an underage adolescent, of their own accord, demands it be done (for whatever reason), and the certified circumciser asked has a well-founded fear that the child will try to do it themselves if denied, and so carries it out safely based on that belief. I wouldn't want that entirely legal, but at the same time I'd be uncomfortable with prosecuting someone in such a situation.
Original post by the beer
Apparently we should never compare these two practices but I can see absolutely no reason why this should be the case.
While FGM in most forms is far more damaging than MGM some forms are pretty much the same thing. Not all forms of FGM involve removing the clitoris yet all forms of FGM are rightly illegal including those that are very much comparable to MGM.
Avoiding this comparison seems to be doing nothing but reinforcing the myth that FGM is the removal of the clitoris and nothing else, this is dangerous and could lead to victims of FGM wrongly believing they're not victims and not protected by the law and of course it does nothing to help prevent MGM.
So can anyone explain why we shouldn't compare these two and why the clitoral hood should be protected by law while the foreskin shouldn't?
While FGM in most forms is far more damaging than MGM some forms are pretty much the same thing. Not all forms of FGM involve removing the clitoris yet all forms of FGM are rightly illegal including those that are very much comparable to MGM.
Avoiding this comparison seems to be doing nothing but reinforcing the myth that FGM is the removal of the clitoris and nothing else, this is dangerous and could lead to victims of FGM wrongly believing they're not victims and not protected by the law and of course it does nothing to help prevent MGM.
So can anyone explain why we shouldn't compare these two and why the clitoral hood should be protected by law while the foreskin shouldn't?
Circumcision IS NOT mutilation, whereas FGM is.
Original post by JMR2017
Circumcision IS NOT mutilation, whereas FGM is.
By the very definition of mutilation it is; it's a disfiguring change to the body.
Original post by Dheorl
By the very definition of mutilation it is; it's a disfiguring change to the body.
Not really. Circumcision is good for the body and helps prevent against STIs, why do we vaccinate our children?
I believe circumcision should only be performed when the male consents.
My brother was circumcised at age 7, did not consent then (even if he did, it shouldn't count at that age) and still complains about it. He believes I am privileged since I am protected by law.
Permanent bodily alterations are not comparable to vaccination.
My brother was circumcised at age 7, did not consent then (even if he did, it shouldn't count at that age) and still complains about it. He believes I am privileged since I am protected by law.
Original post by JMR2017
Not really. Circumcision is good for the body and helps prevent against STIs, why do we vaccinate our children?
Permanent bodily alterations are not comparable to vaccination.
Original post by orderofthelotus
I believe circumcision should only be performed when the male consents.
My brother was circumcised at age 7, did not consent then (even if he did, it shouldn't count at that age) and still complains about it. He believes I am privileged since I am protected by law.
Permanent bodily alterations are not comparable to vaccination.
My brother was circumcised at age 7, did not consent then (even if he did, it shouldn't count at that age) and still complains about it. He believes I am privileged since I am protected by law.
Permanent bodily alterations are not comparable to vaccination.
If the 'alteration' helps the baby, then it should be allowed and encouraged, because parents should act in the best interests of the child... If it doesn't e.g in the case of FGM, then it should not be allowed.
Circumcision helps prevent against many diseases. Why should we not allow it?
Original post by JMR2017
If the 'alteration' helps the baby, then it should be allowed and encouraged, because parents should act in the best interests of the child... If it doesn't e.g in the case of FGM, then it should not be allowed.
Circumcision helps prevent against many diseases. Why should we not allow it?
Circumcision helps prevent against many diseases. Why should we not allow it?
...Because it's a permanent bodily alteration. Reeeeeeeeal basic ethics here. That's someone's body you're f*cking with. You don't shove titanium hip replacements in unwilling wheelchair users with the relevant disorder.
Original post by orderofthelotus
...Because it's a permanent bodily alteration. Reeeeeeeeal basic ethics here. That's someone's body you're f*cking with. You don't shove titanium hip replacements in unwilling wheelchair users with the relevant disorder.
I don't think removing a bit of skin, and shoving titanium hip replacements is a great comparison. Vaccinations often also have effects which last a lifetime. Why are you in favour of one and oppose another? Especially when the removal of foreskin is beneficial to the baby?
Original post by JMR2017
I don't think removing a bit of skin, and shoving titanium hip replacements is a great comparison. Vaccinations often also have effects which last a lifetime. Why are you in favour of one and oppose another? Especially when the removal of foreskin is beneficial to the baby?
You're on a thread with men complaining about how they wished they got to option to not get a circumcision. Nobody complains about being immune to Meningitis ACWY. Circumcision can and does happen to males that aren't exactly babies or adults also, where the parents are in charge of giving consent but the child is the one who lives with a memory that might not be pleasant. That, in particular, is especially f*cked up, and comparable to the psychological trauma of a FGM victim.
Original post by orderofthelotus
You're on a thread with men complaining about how they wished they got to option to not get a circumcision. Nobody complains about being immune to Meningitis ACWY. Circumcision can and does happen to males that aren't exactly babies or adults also, where the parents are in charge of giving consent but the child is the one who lives with a memory that might not be pleasant. That, in particular, is especially f*cked up, and comparable to the psychological trauma of a FGM victim.
I don't remember when I got a circumcision. It happens so young that nobody can remember it, hence no psychological trauma.
Original post by JMR2017
Not really. Circumcision is good for the body and helps prevent against STIs, why do we vaccinate our children?
Yes, and sowing up a woman's vagina would also help prevent STIs...
The whole "good for the body" is irrelevant BS in any western civilisation, and up for debate in the rest of the world.
Ooooh, whilst we're at it, lets remove all appendixes, mammary glands, prostates, tonsils... the list could go on.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
