Turn on thread page Beta

Female circumcision watch

Announcements
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    Oh, and something else to think about: some cultures still have eunuch colonies/cults.

    And also, what's the difference between circumcision and sex change operations? Should we allow men to have their penises removed if female circumcision is illegal in this country? Is it different because it's consensual?
    Sex change operations are very different to female circumcision. The man has chosen to have this procedure done to him, whereas female babies are unlikely to be able to voice much of an objection. It is still bodily mutilation, but to me, only in the way that having implants or plastic surgery is - a decision consciously made by a grown adult.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cielo)
    It is!?? Ouch- I thought it was only the foreskin?
    The definition of male circumcision is having the foreskin removed, you're right. But I think what she was trying to say is that female circumcision would be the equivalent of having the head of the penis removed. In terms of loss of physical sensation, I guess.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    A lot of tribes perform male circumcision in the same conditions and they're expected to not flinch at all as it's a sign of weakness. There are also certain tribes who knock out the two front teeth in adolescent boys as part of their cultural beliefs. Not all these practices are aimed soley at women.

    I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about them as it's very hard to step outside my own cultural upbringing which is very different. I certainly don't think anyone with a western (and therefore entirely different- and usually completely ignorant) outlook is qualified to tell other people how to live. I'd feel slightly hypocritical if I didn't extend that belief to areas such as female circumcision although that's such an extreme case so hmmm, not entirely sure how I feel about it.

    RE someone saying circumcision is forcing beliefs onto a child that they may reject as adults- I think one of the fundamental parts of most (if not all) religions is that you raise your children according to the teachings of that religion including baptism, circumcision, and whatever else. It is therefore very difficult to use that argument against circumcision as it's contradictory.

    I'd also like to point out that female circumcision is still legal in many American states and was fairly widely practised there into the 1950s.
    Get some moral backbone! You don’t think its right that we should condemn other cultures for mutilating little girls? So we shouldn’t condemn tribal Muslim communities in Pakistan where they sentence women to gang rape as a punishment for infidelity? See this is what is fundamentally wrong with the notion of multiculturalism and the "all cultures are equal mantra", if you believe in multiculturalism you must believe that we should tolerate other cultures and people, but there is the real contradiction, you are forced to tolerate the intolerant, while saying women should be treated equally you must also tolerate people who think women are inferior and should be subject to genital mutilation and gang rape, or perhaps we should tolerate people with a culture of human sacrifice, we would have to if the Aztecs were still around wouldn’t we? And it is no defense to say tolerate people so long as they don’t break the law, if we make their cultural practices illegal then we are not being tolerant are we? We shouldn't have to tolerate fundamentalist muslims being intolerant towards women or homosexuals.

    And there is no contradiction with condemning circumcision as child abuse, whether you are religious or not, if you are not then there is nothing to contradict and if you are religious that does not mean you have to dogmatically adhere to every supposed tenant of your religion, their is freedom to interpret your religion as you see fit, and a significant number of Jews have rejected circumcision just as many Christians have embraced homosexuality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Itsallgood)
    No woman in their right mind would chose to have their clit removed.
    :rofl: I know

    I was just trying to be diplomatic
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sssh)
    The definition of male circumcision is having the foreskin removed, you're right. But I think what she was trying to say is that female circumcision would be the equivalent of having the head of the penis removed. In terms of loss of physical sensation, I guess.
    In terms of anatomical equivalence, actually, but I'm just a geeky medic.

    (Original post by puppy)
    A lot of tribes perform male circumcision in the same conditions and they're expected to not flinch at all as it's a sign of weakness. There are also certain tribes who knock out the two front teeth in adolescent boys as part of their cultural beliefs. Not all these practices are aimed soley at women.
    True, and I think they're fairly icky too. There's also a hell of a difference between circumcision at or shortly after birth, when yes, it will hurt, but the kid won't remember, and having it done later in life, fully conscious, when you will remember the pain and it'll scar you for a long time.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sssh)
    The definition of male circumcision is having the foreskin removed, you're right. But I think what she was trying to say is that female circumcision would be the equivalent of having the head of the penis removed. In terms of loss of physical sensation, I guess.
    And the equivalent of male circumcision on a female infant would be to cut of, in whole or in part, her outer vaginal lips. Given that we would certainly condemn that as barbaric we ought to condemn male circumcision too.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    In terms of anatomical equivalence, actually, but I'm just a geeky medic.


    anatomical? is that saying the head of the penis and the clitoris are the same size?? :confused:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/me...tes/241221.stm

    No woman (with a choice) would choose to have any of the procedures in that article. This isn’t about respecting different cultures; it’s about persisting human rights on every culture. None of this is based on any logical purpose, it all stems from completely ignorant and misogynist traditions and customs that degrade woman. The main reason for the removal of the clitoris is so that the woman cannot experience sexual pleasure and so therefore there is less chance she would seek sexual activity before marriage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by **noooni**)
    so therefore there is less chance she would seek sexual activity before marriage.
    or after marriage.

    ewwwwwwww that picture of the ladywith the scissors is nasty :puke:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cielo)
    anatomical? is that saying the head of the penis and the clitoris are the same size?? :confused:
    No, not the same size, but the same embryological origin.

    (Original post by pendragon)
    And the equivalent of male circumcision on a female infant would be to cut of, in whole or in part, her outer vaginal lips. Given that we would certainly condemn that as barbaric we ought to condemn male circumcision too.
    Actually no, the outer labia are NOT the same as the foreskin - the clitoral hood is. The embryological tissue that becomes the labia majora in women becomes the skin of the scrotum.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    Actually no, the outer labia are NOT the same as the foreskin - the clitoral hood is. The embryological tissue that becomes the labia majora in women becomes the skin of the scrotum.
    Thanks for the info. The point remains valid I would say, do you agree?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    Actually no, the outer labia are NOT the same as the foreskin - the clitoral hood is. The embryological tissue that becomes the labia majora in women becomes the skin of the scrotum.
    Ah…. you know that also explains why the outer labia isn’t the most beautiful thing in the world, but nothing is less aesthetically appealing than a scrotum.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Thanks for the info. The point remains valid I would say, do you agree?
    To an extent, yes. I don't think that male circumcision is a necessary part of any religion, and should probably be done for medical reasons only. That said, men who have been circumcised either in hospital or by a properly trained person, as Jewish babies in this country are, are not likely to suffer any ill effects or sexual dysfunction as a result. Agreed, it's completely unnecessary, but it's not as barbaric as removing a woman's clitoris so she can NEVER feel sexual pleasure. An equivalent female circumcision (removing the clitoral hood only) would not affect her enjoyment of sex - I think - but that's rarely all that is done.

    So I don't really know - I think male circumcision is unnecessary but not as traumatic as the female equivalent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Get some moral backbone! You don’t think its right that we should condemn other cultures for mutilating little girls? So we shouldn’t condemn tribal Muslim communities in Pakistan where they sentence women to gang rape as a punishment for infidelity? See this is what is fundamentally wrong with the notion of multiculturalism and the "all cultures are equal mantra", if you believe in multiculturalism you must believe that we should tolerate other cultures and people, but there is the real contradiction, you are forced to tolerate the intolerant, while saying women should be treated equally you must also tolerate people who think women are inferior and should be subject to genital mutilation and gang rape, or perhaps we should tolerate people with a culture of human sacrifice, we would have to if the Aztecs were still around wouldn’t we? And it is no defense to say tolerate people so long as they don’t break the law, if we make their cultural practices illegal then we are not being tolerant are we? We shouldn't have to tolerate fundamentalist muslims being intolerant towards women or homosexuals.

    And there is no contradiction with condemning circumcision as child abuse, whether you are religious or not, if you are not then there is nothing to contradict and if you are religious that does not mean you have to dogmatically adhere to every supposed tenant of your religion, their is freedom to interpret your religion as you see fit, and a significant number of Jews have rejected circumcision just as many Christians have embraced homosexuality.
    I don't think it's right for me to condemn anything, no. As a spoilt Westerner with no experience of other peoples' cultures, no morals and no values, I don't really see what qualifies me to wander into someone elses cultural heritage and tell them what's wrong with it. If there are people who are qualified to do that then let them do as they will to stop peoples' suffering (if they are indeed suffering).

    I don't allow anyone to tell me how to live (hence I shall not, as you demanded 'get some moral backbone') and I like to extend that philosophy to others.

    At no point did I say I thought any of that stuff was right, I just mused on what my general beliefs were and what implications that had for my views on more extreme cultural practices.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bluedreamer)
    I think it is.

    If a woman chooses to have her clit removed, I suppose it’s her choice - I’m all for freedom of choice. But if something goes wrong, does she have the right to run to her doctor to fix it? If she caused it herself? :dontknow: sorry, I'm going off topic

    Except that she can't choose to do that in this country as it's illegal. This is why I brought it up- seems odd that you can have a full sex change but not have your clit hood removed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Get some moral backbone! You don’t think its right that we should condemn other cultures for mutilating little girls? So we shouldn’t condemn tribal Muslim communities in Pakistan where they sentence women to gang rape as a punishment for infidelity? See this is what is fundamentally wrong with the notion of multiculturalism and the "all cultures are equal mantra", if you believe in multiculturalism you must believe that we should tolerate other cultures and people, but there is the real contradiction, you are forced to tolerate the intolerant, while saying women should be treated equally you must also tolerate people who think women are inferior and should be subject to genital mutilation and gang rape, or perhaps we should tolerate people with a culture of human sacrifice, we would have to if the Aztecs were still around wouldn’t we? And it is no defense to say tolerate people so long as they don’t break the law, if we make their cultural practices illegal then we are not being tolerant are we? We shouldn't have to tolerate fundamentalist muslims being intolerant towards women or homosexuals.

    And there is no contradiction with condemning circumcision as child abuse, whether you are religious or not, if you are not then there is nothing to contradict and if you are religious that does not mean you have to dogmatically adhere to every supposed tenant of your religion, their is freedom to interpret your religion as you see fit, and a significant number of Jews have rejected circumcision just as many Christians have embraced homosexuality.

    Absolutely agree! Couldn't put it better myself!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    I don't think it's right for me to condemn anything, no.
    If you cannot condemn something you know is wrong, then you are not a philosopher, but a coward.

    By the logic of you're argument (something distinctly difficult to discover it must be said) you could not condemn someone for depriving you of the right to hold your passive ideology.

    By the way, if at any point you condemn me or what I am saying you will have contradicted yourself.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by puppy)
    I don't think it's right for me to condemn anything, no. As a spoilt Westerner with no experience of other peoples' cultures, no morals and no values, I don't really see what qualifies me to wander into someone elses cultural heritage and tell them what's wrong with it.
    Your postcolonial guilt complex is sadly out of date.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophisti_kate)
    Absolutely agree! Couldn't put it better myself!
    Thanks!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why would you wanna do that?!
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.