|
Take the discussions of the merits of religion to PMs - KwarK |
On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT. In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, as is any procedure performed on an unconsenting infant, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
|
On January 26 2012 06:59 zalz wrote:Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst.
There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way.
"How DARE you compare serfdom with slavery!! Serfdom is NOTHING LIKE slavery! True, the serfs are not fully free, but they are are not OWNED like slaves! I can assure you that I have never whipped MY serfs! For you to compare serfdom with slavery is absurd, vile, and indefensible!"
Do you see why your argument is similar to the above? Just because FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it's not a major problem. It's still a violation of a child's most basic civil rights: the right to an intact body, and both are done primarily in the name of religion. If you refuse to see the similarity, you are either patently misinformed or simply denying male victimhood.
|
If all you need to discredit discussion on anything plaguing mankind is a reference to some other negative action happening elsewhere in the world, then we'd might as well give up on any form of online discussion.
Both are bad. One doesn't invalidate the other.
|
On January 26 2012 07:12 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 06:59 zalz wrote:On January 26 2012 06:47 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 04:22 LittleAtari wrote:On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote:
As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient. Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex. That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do. Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause. The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them. These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims. I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision. No they don't because other then you nobody would ever dare to compare the cutting of the foreskin to the cutting of the clitoris. Can you read? He said that he was against it, clearly, and he never stated that cutting the foreskin was like FGM. EVER. He just said that male circumsicion at birth was a problem and that it should be looked at since it still happens a lot here, in the NA, because we, sadly, can't do much to stop a cultural practice in another country. And for a fact, male circumsicion at birth is a problem. Yes, it's not damaging for the health of the boy, but is damaging for the sexual pleasure and therefore should be a choice. How is that not sensible?
It's like discussing forest fires when someone walks in and says we should also pay attention to the candle on the table.
By comparing a giant problem to a small problem, you make a dishonest argument.
It happens all the time. If you try to dicuss human rights there is going to be someone that points to some obscure case in the US that went wrong, then he points to Zimbawe where people are tortured by the police on a daily basis and they say "well, both have problems."
First of all, male circumcision isn't even the topic of debate. And second, to bring it up in relation to FGM is to make light, the damage that FGM inflicts.
|
On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT. In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that?
So should we basically never state our opinion and only flood each topic with "omg! terrible!" without adding anything? It's a forum, it's not a news site. We are here to discuss, nothing else, not just to read and being angry after.
That's just retarded to even say that it's a problem to state a fact that is related to the event. How does-it "belittle" the topic, stating that some other practices like that are happening to men too and should be looked at the same way?
Most women wants to be treated equal, not to be treated as a victim and be treated as a being that need to be protected more than a man. Yes, FGM is terrible. But, male circumsision is terrible too and should be looked at the same way, not being completly ignored because it is happening to women. BOTH SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND STOPPED!
But sadly, it's a cultural practice and there is little we can do from here to stop it, as terribe as it is.
|
On January 26 2012 07:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 06:59 zalz wrote:Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst.
There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way. "How DARE you compare serfdom with slavery!! Serfdom is NOTHING LIKE slavery! True, the serfs are not fully free, but they are are not OWNED like slaves! I can assure you that I have never whipped MY serfs! For you to compare serfdom with slavery is absurd, vile, and indefensible!" Do you see why your argument is similar to the above? Just because FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it's not a major problem. It's still a violation of a child's most basic civil rights: the right to an intact body, and both are done primarily in the name of religion. If you refuse to see the similarity, you are either patently misinformed or simply denying male victimhood.
This is exactly the kind of post I talk about above.
One one hand you have a forest fire. On the other you have a candle on the table.
"Well, both have fire."
It makes light of heavy subjects by dragging in remote small issues.
|
On January 26 2012 07:31 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT. In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? So should we basically never state our opinion and only flood each topic with "omg! terrible!" without adding anything? It's a forum, it's not a news site. We are here to discuss, nothing else, not just to read and being angry after. That's just retarded to even say that it's a problem to state a fact that is related to the event. How does-it "belittle" the topic, stating that some other practices like that are happening to men too and should be looked at the same way? Most women wants to be treated equal, not to be treated as a victim and be treated as a being that need to be protected more than a man. Yes, FGM is terrible. But, male circumsision is terrible too and should be looked at the same way, not being completly ignored because it is happening to women. BOTH SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND STOPPED! But sadly, it's a cultural practice and there is little we can do from here to stop it, as terribe as it is.
They aren't looked at differently because it's men and women...
They are looked at differently because they inflict vastly different scales of damage. One does nothing to either the sex drive or the experience of sex. The other destroys the libido and any enjoyment of sex.
Forest fire, candle light.
|
On January 26 2012 07:31 Xalorian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT. In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? So should we basically never state our opinion and only flood each topic with "omg! terrible!" without adding anything? It's a forum, it's not a news site. We are here to discuss, nothing else, not just to read and being angry after. That's just retarded to even say that it's a problem to state a fact that is related to the event. How does-it "belittle" the topic, stating that some other practices like that are happening to men too and should be looked at the same way? Most women wants to be treated equal, not to be treated as a victim and be treated as a being that need to be protected more than a man. Yes, FGM is terrible. But, male circumsision is terrible too and should be looked at the same way, not being completly ignored because it is happening to women. BOTH SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND STOPPED! But sadly, it's a cultural practice and there is little we can do from here to stop it, as terribe as it is.
Zzz... Then state your opinion on said topic. If you think it's a bad practice, say so. If you think it has its merits, state that instead.
Coming into any thread discussing something and saying "this discussion is bullshit because we're also not upset at X" does absolutely trivialize the original discussion.
If I think Lost Temple is imbalanced, for reason X or Y, and you come barging in and say "BUT PYTHON IS BROKEN TOO, WHY AREN'T WE DISCUSSING THAT??" you're not adding anything of value to the discussion.
|
And holy shit, look at some of these recent replies. The OP is about the abuses of women in certain countries, and we have people spouting out "women want to be treated X" and "women demand unfair treatment" and "what about the MENSSS"! posts.
Does no one else see this? *crazypills.gif from zoolander*
|
On January 26 2012 07:30 zalz wrote:It's like discussing forest fires when someone walks in and says we should also pay attention to the candle on the table.
By comparing a giant problem to a small problem, you make a dishonest argument.
By implying male circumcision is a small problem relative to FGM, you are making a dishonest (or ignorant) argument.
On January 26 2012 07:30 zalz wrote:First of all, male circumcision isn't even the topic of debate. And second, to bring it up in relation to FGM is to make light, the damage that FGM inflicts.
No, it's being brought up by people to point out the hypocrisy and the pedestalization of female victimhood concurrent with the denial of male victimhood.
It's little different from how feminist frequently lobby to fund women's shelters and deny funding for shelters that admit men/teenage boys. If you really care about human rights, you wouldn't ignore the male half of humanity. Or, as suggested my post above, it would be ridiculous to ignore serfdom when opposing slavery in the same country. Opposing both should go hand-in-hand when fighting for human rights.
On January 26 2012 07:32 zalz wrote:It makes light of heavy subjects by dragging in remote small issues.
You missed the point completely then. You are implicitly assuming that male circumcision is a "remote small issue". That's either ignorant or disingenous.
If you can't see why your position is blatantly hypocritical, then you should take some time to put aside your ingrained biases and think about it carefully.
|
On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT. In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue? Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
I am not trivializing anything at all. The truth is that is that focusing on these women's issues when they are part of much larger more encompassing issues trivializes all of the other issues which are ignored. I would argue that those poor men are trivialized every time some speech is given about female circumcision and males are left out even though most of the arguments are exactly the same. I am just sick of stuff becoming an issue only when it hurts women. The FGM issue is something that has been propagandized and pushed by feminist groups for decades and it is the only reason it gets discussed. Just because I say it has been heavily propagandized (it certainly has been) doesn't mean I don't think it is bad..I do.
And lets put it th is way. One of the lowest classifications of female circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood...this is almost exactly the same thing as male circumcision. If someone in the United States brought their daughter into a doctors office and asked that their her foreskin (oops i mean clitoral hood) be removed not only would the doctor not perform the procedure but they would likely get the state involved to possibly take away the child for fear that the parents would keep looking for a doctor who would perform the operation.
I like to classify things. To me the issues are part of larger, more encompassing class called "unnecessary child genital mutilation". There is no need in my opinion to talk about these issues separetely other than to appeal to people via class/gender warfare tactics.
Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
|
On January 26 2012 07:39 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT. In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue? Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole. Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border?
|
On January 26 2012 07:32 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:26 sunprince wrote:On January 26 2012 06:59 zalz wrote:Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst.
There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way. "How DARE you compare serfdom with slavery!! Serfdom is NOTHING LIKE slavery! True, the serfs are not fully free, but they are are not OWNED like slaves! I can assure you that I have never whipped MY serfs! For you to compare serfdom with slavery is absurd, vile, and indefensible!" Do you see why your argument is similar to the above? Just because FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it's not a major problem. It's still a violation of a child's most basic civil rights: the right to an intact body, and both are done primarily in the name of religion. If you refuse to see the similarity, you are either patently misinformed or simply denying male victimhood. This is exactly the kind of post I talk about above. One one hand you have a forest fire. On the other you have a candle on the table. "Well, both have fire." It makes light of heavy subjects by dragging in remote small issues.
No it is more like on one hand we have a big forest fire and on one hand we have a somewhat smaller forest fire but we will only focus on the big forest fire because we can say it hurts women.
|
My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
|
On January 26 2012 07:34 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:31 Xalorian wrote:On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT. In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? So should we basically never state our opinion and only flood each topic with "omg! terrible!" without adding anything? It's a forum, it's not a news site. We are here to discuss, nothing else, not just to read and being angry after. That's just retarded to even say that it's a problem to state a fact that is related to the event. How does-it "belittle" the topic, stating that some other practices like that are happening to men too and should be looked at the same way? Most women wants to be treated equal, not to be treated as a victim and be treated as a being that need to be protected more than a man. Yes, FGM is terrible. But, male circumsision is terrible too and should be looked at the same way, not being completly ignored because it is happening to women. BOTH SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND STOPPED! But sadly, it's a cultural practice and there is little we can do from here to stop it, as terribe as it is. They aren't looked at differently because it's men and women... They are looked at differently because they inflict vastly different scales of damage. One does nothing to either the sex drive or the experience of sex. The other destroys the libido and any enjoyment of sex. Forest fire, candle light.
Well, go look at it on the internet a bit, please, before stating bullshit. Removing the foreskin does have an effect on the sex drive and the experience of sex. Pretty much every guys, at least that I know, that got their foreskin cut while being adult, lost a lot. Sex is a lot less fun for them and they miss the feelings that they lost by losing their foreskin. Basically, one of them told me that it was now twice as fun before. Kid that got their foreskin cut at birth don't know it simply because they neved had sex with it.
And not, it's not about "scale of damage". Yes, female circumsicion is worst, i understand that... But the general practice of the circumsision without agreement or medical reason should be looked at, not just the female one, but INCLUDING IT, off course.
So actually, it's more like forest fire and house fire. Yes, one cause more damage, but both should be stopped and looked at. We should not be ignoring one completly just because one is worst. And male circumsision is ignored. That is the point... nothing else. We are not diminishing the impact of the topic, actually, we are adding things to it.
|
On January 26 2012 07:41 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:39 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT. In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue? Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole. Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border?
But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things.
|
On January 26 2012 07:43 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 07:41 Roe wrote:On January 26 2012 07:39 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 07:21 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:54 macil222 wrote:On January 26 2012 06:43 Haemonculus wrote:On January 26 2012 06:32 RifleCow wrote:On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice. Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer. Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts. Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth. Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you. In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT. In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes. http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=66 Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic. It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue? Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole. Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border? But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things.
As I said, political borders shouldn't hinder humanitarian empathy and aid.
|
On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote:
religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is.
woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west.
scnr;-)
You failed to mention that women had bad times in the western world too, BECAUSE OF RELIGION.
|
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:
My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
If both were happening here in the United States, or even in the West in general then I would comment on both or whichever was the topic at hand but the difference is one is here one is way over there. We have people that are so blind that they will get oturaged about things happening overseas but have no problem with things that they personally do here even though the activities are logically the same, differing only in severity.
It is like people getting outraged over Russia's treatment of Georgia a few years ago while our troops are marching all across the globe.
|
On January 26 2012 07:38 Haemonculus wrote:The OP is about the abuses of women in certain countries, and we have people spouting out "women want to be treated X" and "women demand unfair treatment" and "what about the MENSSS"! posts.
"Whatabouthtemenz" is a bullshit feminist meme designed to deny the experiences of male victimhood.
The reason male circumcision is being brought up is not to play the oppression Olympics, or to shift the discussion to men's issues. The reason it's brought up is to point out the hypocrisy of fighting for human rights only for visible, pedestalized victims (girls) while ignoring boys.
Any person against slavery should also be against serfdom. While the former is more severe than the latter, fighting against both goes hand-in-hand. The problem here is that plenty of people completely ignore male circumcision and then get offended when someone points out the hypocrisy. It's little different from how feminists get outraged by male-on-female violence and completely ignore female-on-male violence (remember the 14-year-old girls molesting the 11-year-old boys thread, and how feminists didn't give a shit?), but still insist on claiming the mantle of pro-gender equality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
