Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Because of systemic sexism against males.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Why would feminists lobby for MGM?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Both should be protected by law
    This.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    This was a very interesting read on the matter:

    https://aeon.co/essays/are-male-and-...lly-equivalent
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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?
    Circumcision IS NOT mutilation, whereas FGM is.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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.

    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    ...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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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