Female Genital Mutilation

On July 27 2013 13:19 idonthinksobro wrote:
Now we just need to stop male genitale mutilation aka circumcision.

On July 27 2013 13:19 idonthinksobro wrote:
Now we just need to stop male genitale mutilation aka circumcision.

On July 27 2013 13:23 Falling wrote:

What do you mean, now? The wording of that seems to suggest female genital mutilation has stopped. Can we at least stay on the same topic for more than two posts rather than derailing it with men's issues? We already have a circumcision thread. We don't need two.

On July 27 2013 13:33 idonthinksobro wrote:


female genital mutilation isn't socially acceptable and there are laws against that in almost every country. More and more countrys try to stop this practice in a couple of years it will be gone. Male genital mutilation is still socially acceptable and this is a problem because if we aren't even trying to stop it more and more males have to suffer.

[B]On July 27 2013 13:12 AUFKLARUNG wrote:Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has been practiced in many countries, most especially in Africa, for traditional and customary justifications. In a report by the UNICEF, it seems that this arcane and irrational practice is finally coming to an end.

On July 27 2013 13:50 Robotix wrote:


I do believe you meant to say archaic and not arcane. Arcane means magical whereas archaic means old-fashioned.

On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break

On July 27 2013 14:11 babylon wrote:
Not that I support the practice in any way, but if a one chooses to undergo such a procedure, then so be it.

The issue is, of course, the fact that many of the women (or rather, children) are not given a choice and/or are not properly informed about the procedure and its consequences.

On July 27 2013 14:42 Millitron wrote:
Hold on, the chart in the OP says many women in these countries are cool with it? Why should UNICEF, or anyone really, go in and say they should stop, if many of these places disagree?

On July 27 2013 13:58 Djzapz wrote:

I think human rights are everybody's business. It's easy to lump everything people do under the "culture" title and pretend that all cultures are equal, but when a given culture butchers its children without giving them a choice, it's cause for concern.

It's a particular problem when it's done at home with razorblades and stuff. No "culture" excuse will make up for the life of children who die or end up with life-long complications due to basement surgery.

IMO it's peculiar that certain despicable acts get lumped under culture and that somehow makes it acceptable... Some people like to pretend to themselves that all cultures are equal, and I can't really argue against that but I can certainly argue against specific practices. In some places, women get prosecuted, sometimes with lashes, for having been raped. You can't just say "well that's how they run things". It is, yeah, it's the particular culture of some villages in some countries or whatever, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Edit: going to bed, so if someone responds to this, maybe I'll read it tomorrow. Cheers and stay classy.

On July 27 2013 15:25 T.O.P. wrote:

You may think their practices are barbaric. But they think the same way about western culture. IMO, people of their country should have the freedom to run their country as they wish. That means if Egyptians elect a Islamist government, then they should be allowed to conduct their Islamist practices.

On July 27 2013 14:42 Millitron wrote:
Hold on, the chart in the OP says many women in these countries are cool with it? Why should UNICEF, or anyone really, go in and say they should stop, if many of these places disagree?

On July 27 2013 15:32 Roe wrote:


Why do you think a mob of people can conduct mutilation on women who don't want it?

On July 27 2013 15:13 Shival wrote:


Those statistics are pretty much useless. Most often the women in those countries do not voice their own opinion but rather that of what they're 'supposed' to say. If given proper education about the practice and free choice I'm certain the percentages would drop to near zero.

On July 27 2013 15:45 DidYuhim wrote:

So, if you educate them that something is wrong(read: give them PROPER education) they will vote for whatever you want them to.

On July 27 2013 15:45 DidYuhim wrote:

So, if you educate them that something is wrong(read: give them PROPER education) they will vote for whatever you want them to.

On July 27 2013 15:43 T.O.P. wrote:

A mob? You mean their parents?

On July 27 2013 15:25 T.O.P. wrote:

You may think their practices are barbaric. But they think the same way about western culture. IMO, people of their country should have the freedom to run their country as they wish. That means if Egyptians elect a Islamist government, then they should be allowed to conduct their Islamist practices.

On July 27 2013 13:23 Falling wrote:

What do you mean, now? The wording of that seems to suggest female genital mutilation has stopped. Can we at least stay on the same topic for more than two posts rather than derailing it with men's issues? We already have a circumcision thread. We don't need two.

On July 27 2013 16:05 Shival wrote:
Proper education is not about pushing western morals.

On July 27 2013 16:48 Artax wrote:

I'm guessing most of the middle east would disagree with you there...

Education is never objective. The fact that you label it "proper" already implies a western bias.

On July 27 2013 16:55 No_Roo wrote:


Because the practice of any form of genital mutilation should stand or fall on it's merit, not it's popularity. We have thoroughly studied and debunked the so called 'benefits' genital mutilation proponents advocate with. Additionally we have demonstrated significant harm from these practices. That's why.

On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break

On July 27 2013 17:08 Mothra wrote:


That's a hard stance to defend. When the perceived benefits are marriageability, social acceptance, and aesthetic preference... how do you "debunk" those things? Type 4 FGM, which includes "Pricking or nicking involves cutting to draw blood, but no removal of tissue and no permanent alteration of the external genitalia." would be hard to classify as "significantly harmful". So do we censure some forms of FGM and not others? If it becomes a risk vs benefit thing, it is very hard to draw the line past where the practice becomes unacceptable. If you read the links I posted, the victims of FGM often do not see themselves as harmed, and they are the ones who circumcise their daughters.

On July 27 2013 16:52 Shival wrote:


It doesn't imply anything at all other than that the education is based on facts. If you think education based on facts is western bias, then be my guest. Just know that you're utterly ridiculous.

Same goes for 'most of the middle east', if they believe education based on facts is pushing western morals, they are also being utterly ridiculous.

On July 27 2013 17:30 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Assemble the army of democracy and freedom, there's some countries that need to be shown how to be civilised.

As much as it may suck, I think those cultures have to change their practices through themselves wanting to do it. External cultural pressure from the West is ok, but it should really stay at that. Forcing shit on others will only make it worse in the long run.

On July 27 2013 17:30 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Assemble the army of democracy and freedom, there's some countries that need to be shown how to be civilised.

As much as it may suck, I think those cultures have to change their practices through themselves wanting to do it. External cultural pressure from the West is ok, but it should really stay at that. Forcing shit on others will only make it worse in the long run.

On July 27 2013 14:42 Millitron wrote:
Hold on, the chart in the OP says many women in these countries are cool with it? Why should UNICEF, or anyone really, go in and say they should stop, if many of these places disagree?

On July 27 2013 17:46 Orek wrote:
It seems to me that the problem is not the FGM itself.
The biggest problem is the fact that FGM is performed by traditional practitioners, not by health personnels, in many places.
So, what if we proivde medical support / advice to them? It respects their culture/tradition while protecting women's health. Or, do people think of FGM as something so evil that helping carry out FGM in any way is not considered a solution?

On July 27 2013 17:46 Orek wrote:
It seems to me that the problem is not the FGM itself.
The biggest problem is the fact that FGM is performed by traditional practitioners, not by health personnels, in many places.
So, what if we proivde medical support / advice to them? It respects their culture/tradition while protecting women's health. Or, do people think of FGM as something so evil that helping carry out FGM in any way is not considered a solution?

On July 27 2013 17:48 Shival wrote:


It's a child for christ sake. Let him/her decide on their own when they're of age.

On July 27 2013 17:20 Shival wrote:


Infections don't count as significantly harmful? Most of these FGMs are not done in sterile environments, nor with sterile equipment.

Anyway, type 4 includes alot more than what you said: "Includes pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or the labia; stretching of the clitoris and or the labia; cauterisation or burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissues, scraping of the vaginal orifice or cutting (Gishiri cuts) of the vagina and introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina."

If you believe that doesn't result in permanent alteration, you believe in wonders.

On July 27 2013 13:24 Livelovedie wrote:

Why it provides valuable STD protection.

Edit: My penis was called inferior... I was obviously obligated to respond!

On July 27 2013 17:53 Chocobo wrote:


The idea behind FGM is that if you don't do it, the teenage girl will be unable to control her sexual desire and will become a slut (who, having lost "honor", will either never get married or will have to be killed or shunned or something like that). They want to protect their daughters from having that fate, so they can't wait and let her decide.

On July 27 2013 18:02 Mothra wrote:


I'm not the one you have to convince. If you argue from "harm vs benefit", it favors those who defend the practice. Obviously the women who circumcise their daughters after undergoing it themselves believe that the "benefit" outweighs the harm. Why would they believe an outsider telling them they are harmed over their own friends and family?

Instead of playing the "you are harmed", "no I'm not" game, we should be focusing on why it is fundamentally wrong, regardless of degree of harm. The main transgression of rights here is that it's being done on girls who cannot refuse. Adults can be persuaded, not necessarily prohibited, from mutilating their own genitals, but the main thing is to stop it being forced on girls.

On July 27 2013 18:17 Shival wrote:


I beg to differ. We should use every avenue to argue against FGM and I think the harms definately outweigh the so called benefits. Merely providing numbers on deaths or complications due to FGM should already be enough to convince people of its harm. We don't need to convince everyone, we need to convince the majority so the social pressure collapses.

Also, I don't think you're making the right attribute to why previously circumcised women circumcise their daughters. It's social pressure more so than that they believe it's the right thing to do. You've said it yourself with the perceived benefits: marriageability, social acceptance, and aesthetic preference.

On July 27 2013 17:34 Chocobo wrote:


Good lord I wish there were more people who could understand what you've said here. You should respect the differences in other cultures... WITHIN REASON. When a culture mutilates their children and murders their rape victims... that is evil. It is not "pushing our western viewpoints on them" to refuse to tolerate wrongheaded violence and killing. It is simply the morally correct thing to do.

On July 27 2013 19:27 cloneThorN wrote:



Indeed, defending atrocities with the "But it's their culture" argument, is worthless. You could defend Nazi Germany and what it did with the exact same "logic".

Ontopic: Underaged mutilation of both females and males should be banned, just for the sheer fact that people sometimes actually dies as a result, let alone the huge number of complications/permanent damagdes/infections that can ome as a result.

I can by no means understand, how intelligent humans can accept such despicable sh!t. Not even animals would be stupid enough to do something as self harming for their species, as genital mutilation.

On July 27 2013 18:25 29 fps wrote:
I'm surprised that a lot of women in those red countries are also in favor of FGM....

On July 27 2013 19:01 Mothra wrote:


I suppose you're right. It's just amazing though how quickly numbers and statistics can be dismissed when they support an unpopular conclusion. I suspect there will be a lot of resentment and resistance when presenting data that implies harmful intent, backwardness and ignorance. I feel like more than empirical evidence is needed, when the same thing can look so self evident to one group yet not at all to another.

On July 27 2013 19:36 KwarK wrote:
Take up the white man's burden.

On July 27 2013 17:48 Shival wrote:


It's a child for christ sake. Let him/her decide on their own when they're of age.

On July 27 2013 20:02 Danglars wrote:

That's rather a distinct question in there from the way you took it. Are we to gather that every cultural practice done on kids that they more or less have no choice in should be subject to similar international censure?

You may disagree with me, but we are lumping together a very scarring harmful type of mutilation with a rightly "symbolic circumcision" i.e. a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation. Oh yes, one is a shameful practice and I condemn it. Aside from the connection to Type#1-3 & parts of 4, is not that last bit just cultural?

(Yeah no warpaint, hunting, or dancing too before the age of majority. They're kids for gods sake!)

On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break

On July 27 2013 20:02 Danglars wrote:
That's rather a distinct question in there from the way you took it. Are we to gather that every cultural practice done on kids that they more or less have no choice in should be subject to similar international censure?

On July 27 2013 19:56 Shival wrote:


I'm not sure how to take this one, depending on how you look at the poem. Is it meant as satirical or not?

On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break

On July 27 2013 20:26 KwarK wrote:

I think our culture is objectively better than one which mutilates/kills (it's high risk surgery) women to avoid them enjoying sexual reproduction and that those with the power to change the world have an obligation to attempt to end such practices. Kipling was a massive racist of course and empire had little to do with moral imperative and a lot to do with exploitation but the example of Sati in India still stands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)#British_and_other_European_territories

On July 27 2013 20:10 Shival wrote:


I don't see warpaint, hunting or dancing as being painful to the child. Pricking of genitalia to the point of blood, yes I do. It's unnecessarily painful.

Though as to your first question, you're trying to make it a slippery slope while it is not. There's a clear boundary.

Edit: Also, I don't really see why a couple of you are trying to detract from subject at hand. Nearly every FGM performed is much worse than the "a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation".

On July 27 2013 20:34 Danglars wrote:

I immediately want to commission a bunch of white busybodies to survey every tribe on earth for your big 2:
"Unnecessarily painful:" This as opposed to traditions which are necessarily painful. Because traditions are judged at how necessary the pain is to the tradition and not by other means!
I mean that continent had tribes with neck rings and with implanted objects of decorative fashion. Ritualistic cutting of both sexes is not unknown in traditions. Depending on how you define child (since this subject does cover teenagers), we must even consider the coming of age ceremonies to prove you're a man. But now the white man has laid down the ironclad term of unnecessary pain as the rubric of traditions. I question that as any sort of boundary. It is widely applicable and almost bastardizes the term tradition.

I am trying to get at people's real objections. If we achieved a sort of 99.999% Type 4 symbolic circumcision done in sanitary conditions, would people here still support the righteous crusaders with both the same vehemence and moral certitude?

On July 27 2013 20:26 KwarK wrote:
I think our culture is objectively better than one which mutilates/kills (it's high risk surgery) women to avoid them enjoying sexual reproduction and that those with the power to change the world have an obligation to attempt to end such practices.

On July 27 2013 20:31 T.O.P. wrote:

Exactly. What makes you think the women of Africa will thank you when America and Europe offers 5 Billion in Aid in exchange for a ban on FGM?

Are Native Americans happy that Europeans invaded America and civilized them? They complain that their culture is destroyed

Are the people of Iraq happy that America invaded Iraq, deposed their dictator, and instituted democracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion

On July 27 2013 20:34 Danglars wrote:

I immediately want to commission a bunch of white busybodies to survey every tribe on earth for your big 2:
"Unnecessarily painful:" This as opposed to traditions which are necessarily painful. Because traditions are judged at how necessary the pain is to the tradition and not by other means!
I mean that continent had tribes with neck rings and with implanted objects of decorative fashion. Ritualistic cutting of both sexes is not unknown in traditions. Depending on how you define child (since this subject does cover teenagers), we must even consider the coming of age ceremonies to prove you're a man. But now the white man has laid down the ironclad term of unnecessary pain as the rubric of traditions. I question that as any sort of boundary. It is widely applicable and almost bastardizes the term tradition.

I am trying to get at people's real objections. If we achieved a sort of 99.999% Type 4 symbolic circumcision done in sanitary conditions, would people here still support the righteous crusaders with both the same vehemence and moral certitude?

On July 27 2013 20:31 T.O.P. wrote:

Exactly. What makes you think the women of Africa will thank you when America and Europe offers 5 Billion in Aid in exchange for a ban on FGM?

Are Native Americans happy that Europeans invaded America and civilized them? They complain that their culture is destroyed

Are the people of Iraq happy that America invaded Iraq, deposed their dictator, and instituted democracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion

On July 27 2013 20:34 Danglars wrote:

I immediately want to commission a bunch of white busybodies to survey every tribe on earth for your big 2:
"Unnecessarily painful:" This as opposed to traditions which are necessarily painful. Because traditions are judged at how necessary the pain is to the tradition and not by other means!
I mean that continent had tribes with neck rings and with implanted objects of decorative fashion. Ritualistic cutting of both sexes is not unknown in traditions. Depending on how you define child (since this subject does cover teenagers), we must even consider the coming of age ceremonies to prove you're a man. But now the white man has laid down the ironclad term of unnecessary pain as the rubric of traditions. I question that as any sort of boundary. It is widely applicable and almost bastardizes the term tradition.

I am trying to get at people's real objections. If we achieved a sort of 99.999% Type 4 symbolic circumcision done in sanitary conditions, would people here still support the righteous crusaders with both the same vehemence and moral certitude?

On July 27 2013 20:31 T.O.P. wrote:

Exactly. What makes you think the women of Africa will thank you when America and Europe offers 5 Billion in Aid in exchange for a ban on FGM?

Are Native Americans happy that Europeans invaded America and civilized them? They complain that their culture is destroyed

Are the people of Iraq happy that America invaded Iraq, deposed their dictator, and instituted democracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion

On July 27 2013 19:36 KwarK wrote:
Take up the white man's burden.

I think every tradition that is painful to a child (or teenager), mentally or physical is abhorrent. There is no necessarily painful tradition, it's all unnecessary. That includes western traditions.

On July 27 2013 20:31 T.O.P. wrote:
Are the people of Iraq happy that America invaded Iraq, deposed their dictator, and instituted democracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion

Wikipedia:
The US government has long maintained its involvement there is with the support of the Iraqi people, but in 2005 when asked directly, 82–87% of the Iraqi populace was opposed to the US presence and wanted US troops to leave. 47% of Iraqis supported attacking US troops. However, in the same poll 77% of Iraqis said that ousting Saddam Hussein had been worth the hardships brought on by the war and that 64% of the ones polled said Iraq was going in the right direction.

On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break

On July 27 2013 21:53 Danglars wrote:
I don't want to get far afield in comparing this to other rather painful bloody traditions, particularly coming of age rituals, since its exposition would necessarily derail this thread. I will say Kwark's central objection is more consistent than the one I previously quoted. The design being to do harm to the enjoyment of sex, or brand virginity into someone, that design oh yeah. I'm in agreement.

I think we do great harm talking about what is and isn't necessary pain in a tradition. I mean, I picture a commission of Shival's choosing going down the line on a great many other traditions and having grounds to reject almost all of them. It's like traditions are either sanitized with Lysol or only for an 18 year old high school graduate (we wouldn't want the uneducated being swayed) or a crew would slap them down, end them all.


I swear you're at war with traditions and use quite a sliding scale that you would call black and white. We take something ironclad like FGM (1&2&3&most of 4) and say everything if it causes mental or physical pain is abhorrent. My tradition is valuable for the child later in life, and the pain is momentary, but your drum playing really causes mental anguish because it is too darn loud. And that one cut on the thumb to symbolize that, oh that's physical pain, and I know blood brothers is abhorrent.

It's cruel painful and designed to deprive sexual pleasure or mutilate for proof of virginity. Abhorrent aims, barbaric practices. Waxing large on all pain and cuts and possibility of mental pain is a recipe for war on traditions, for these could be used for near every small tribal practice in Africa apart from music (well, soft chanting. Loud might induce headaches in a child, and that certainly is mental pain) and paint. I injected some terms to see if anybody saw connections to the civilizing colonialism done in the past, but apparently the smudged gray line is a sharp black one in everybody else's book. We're here to help the backwards peoples from every tradition that might involve a cut or headache and all. Not FGM, but the rationale that seems universally applicable. The new gradebook on traditions is all pain, mental and physical, clean out.

On July 27 2013 21:13 cloneThorN wrote:
The europeans didn't try to civilize the natives, they outright killed them and took their territory.
.

On July 27 2013 21:53 Danglars wrote:
I don't want to get far afield in comparing this to other rather painful bloody traditions, particularly coming of age rituals, since its exposition would necessarily derail this thread. I will say Kwark's central objection is more consistent than the one I previously quoted. The design being to do harm to the enjoyment of sex, or brand virginity into someone, that design oh yeah. I'm in agreement.

I think we do great harm talking about what is and isn't necessary pain in a tradition. I mean, I picture a commission of Shival's choosing going down the line on a great many other traditions and having grounds to reject almost all of them. It's like traditions are either sanitized with Lysol or only for an 18 year old high school graduate (we wouldn't want the uneducated being swayed) or a crew would slap them down, end them all.


I swear you're at war with traditions and use quite a sliding scale that you would call black and white. We take something ironclad like FGM (1&2&3&most of 4) and say everything if it causes mental or physical pain is abhorrent. My tradition is valuable for the child later in life, and the pain is momentary, but your drum playing really causes mental anguish because it is too darn loud. And that one cut on the thumb to symbolize that, oh that's physical pain, and I know blood brothers is abhorrent.

It's cruel painful and designed to deprive sexual pleasure or mutilate for proof of virginity. Abhorrent aims, barbaric practices. Waxing large on all pain and cuts and possibility of mental pain is a recipe for war on traditions, for these could be used for near every small tribal practice in Africa apart from music (well, soft chanting. Loud might induce headaches in a child, and that certainly is mental pain) and paint. I injected some terms to see if anybody saw connections to the civilizing colonialism done in the past, but apparently the smudged gray line is a sharp black one in everybody else's book. We're here to help the backwards peoples from every tradition that might involve a cut or headache and all. Not FGM, but the rationale that seems universally applicable. The new gradebook on traditions is all pain, mental and physical, clean out.

On July 27 2013 22:33 xM(Z wrote:
but is the moral compass of evolution only a pleasure vs pain affair?. everything inducing pleasure is right while everything inducing pain is wrong?. how can that be a justification for anything?.

On July 27 2013 22:33 xM(Z wrote:
but is the moral compass of evolution only a pleasure vs pain affair?. everything inducing pleasure is right while everything inducing pain is wrong?. how can that be a justification for anything?.

On July 27 2013 15:25 T.O.P. wrote:

You may think their practices are barbaric. But they think the same way about western culture. IMO, people of their country should have the freedom to run their country as they wish. That means if Egyptians elect a Islamist government, then they should be allowed to conduct their Islamist practices.

On July 27 2013 22:37 KwarK wrote:

This is a massive imposition of personal freedom, it is literally surgically removing the possibility of an experience from an individual. Even if it wasn't fraught with risks and an attack on free sexual expression motivated by a misogynistic religion as part of its war on women it would still be wrong. It's no different to forcibly cutting the hands off of boys to stop them masturbating.

you can not justify the goodness of the 'personal freedom' idea, when you impose yours onto others.

On July 27 2013 23:07 Shiori wrote:
I am absolutely baffled that people are defending the practice on the grounds of "it's their culture." I think a lot of time is being wasted with Danglars' sort of sophistical point about where the line between harmful and merely temporarily uncomfortable should be drawn. Actually, Danglars' point is a good one, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue because, wherever the line is drawn regarding awful traditions vs okay ones, FGM is definitely on the awful side. I don't think anyone disputes that. With that in mind, I don't really think there's anything Western nations can do about it short of yelling at these tribes until they stop mutilating their women.

I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede.



False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom?

On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:

no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works.

what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes.
you have been indoctrinated too.

what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes.
you have been indoctrinated too.

On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:

So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine?

On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:

it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins.
if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable.

On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:

it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins.
if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable.

On July 27 2013 23:36 Zeo wrote:
If its performed by a trained doctor in a clinic or hospital female circumcision is just another safe procedure. Don't get me wrong, I am against male or female circumcision 'just for the hell of it', though some advocates claim that it reduces the risk of contracting HIV/STD's ect.
It used to be common practice in the US until the early 60's along with male circumcision but it just faded out. Whoever has had sex with an African (North African) woman who has had the tip of their clitoris removed under anesthetics in a clinic environment is just as capable of having an orgasm.
Again, I condone both male and female circumcision as barbaric backwards practices and feel that at least the person being circumcised should have a say in the matter but if it is done in a controlled safe environment you can not condone female genital mutilation and yet support the male one... but meh, guess I will wait for someone to compare me to Hitler

On July 27 2013 23:38 GreenGringo wrote:
People are not deep thinkers by their nature. They don't grasp principles, but only special cases. That's why ten years ago the UK was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers like David Irving, whereas today it's arresting people for offensive Twitter statements. They don't realize the inconsistency because they never understood the principle of freedom of speech; rather, they only took a few soundbytes.

Yet whenever we turn to a subject involving people with brown skin, everyone becomes a philosopher. The very fundamental principles of existence are questioned. What is pain? How do we know that pain is bad? What really is truth? Is truth merely our Western-centric version of truth? Does truth really vary between different communities with different perceptions of the truth? What right do we have to say that female genital mutilation is wrong? Were the Nazis wrong? Is anything wrong? What is the law, and how does it determine right from wrong? Do we really need juries? What is the use in innocent until proven guilty? Is it a reasonable procedure to use violent force against someone because you feel a little affronted? Does logic really matter, or do you just follow your "heart"? What is the use in freedom of speech? Is it okay to arrest people if they make offensive remarks on Twitter? Etc.

On July 27 2013 23:36 Zeo wrote:
If its performed by a trained doctor in a clinic or hospital female circumcision is just another safe procedure. Don't get me wrong, I am against male or female circumcision 'just for the hell of it', though some advocates claim that it reduces the risk of contracting HIV/STD's ect.
It used to be common practice in the US until the early 60's along with male circumcision but it just faded out. Whoever has had sex with an African (North African) woman who has had the tip of their clitoris removed under anesthetics in a clinic environment is just as capable of having an orgasm.
Again, I condone both male and female circumcision as barbaric backwards practices and feel that at least the person being circumcised should have a say in the matter but if it is done in a controlled safe environment you can not condone female genital mutilation and yet support the male one... but meh, guess I will wait for someone to compare me to Hitler

On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:


OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue?

On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:

That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is.

On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:
ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here.
mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins.

On July 28 2013 00:19 xM(Z wrote:
you can't come to a country, spread democracy, then agree with FGM. democracy is a package deal.
(and stop thinking at wars as only being fought with guns and cannons and pitchforks and torches. whenever a winner emerges, a battle was fought; sometimes it's even a civilized battle/war)

On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:

that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy.

ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here.
mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins.

On July 28 2013 00:22 Djzapz wrote:

Did you mean disagree with FGM? It's confusing.
Also are you suggesting that we need to agree with everything that's done in any "democracy" because the fact that it's a democracy makes everything right?

Democracy: Do anything you want.

On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:

Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion.

On July 28 2013 00:34 diehilde wrote: your standpoint is that there is indeed a superior way of regulating society by ethics, science etc. and that outdated concepts like religion and tribal traditions have to disappear or at least their importance be diminished drastically so they dont dominate daily live and social interaction anymore.

On July 28 2013 01:00 Dagda99 wrote:
Why not battle both female and male genital mutilation? Why just focus on the females? Oh yeah, I forgot. MGM isn't important because it's considered normal in America to cut the foreskin off a baby for no medical benefit.

On July 27 2013 17:30 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Assemble the army of democracy and freedom, there's some countries that need to be shown how to be civilised.

As much as it may suck, I think those cultures have to change their practices through themselves wanting to do it. External cultural pressure from the West is ok, but it should really stay at that. Forcing shit on others will only make it worse in the long run.

A story for which Napier is often noted involved Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As first recounted by his brother William, he replied:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." [4]

On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:
no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works.

what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes.
you have been indoctrinated too.

On July 27 2013 23:38 GreenGringo wrote:
People are not deep thinkers by their nature. They don't grasp principles, but only special cases. That's why ten years ago the UK was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers like David Irving, whereas today it's arresting people for offensive Twitter statements. They don't realize the inconsistency because they never understood the principle of freedom of speech; rather, they only took a few soundbytes.

Yet whenever we turn to a subject involving people with brown skin, everyone becomes a philosopher. The very fundamental principles of existence are questioned. What is pain? How do we know that pain is bad? What really is truth? Is truth merely our Western-centric version of truth? Does truth really vary between different communities with different perceptions of the truth? What right do we have to say that female genital mutilation is wrong? Were the Nazis wrong? Is anything wrong? What is the law, and how does it distinguish right from wrong? Do we really need juries? What is the use in innocent until proven guilty? Is it a reasonable procedure to use violent force against someone because you feel a little affronted? Does logic really matter, or do you just follow your "heart"? What is the use in freedom of speech? Is it okay to arrest people if they make offensive remarks on Twitter? Etc.

On July 28 2013 01:02 Djzapz wrote:

That happens in different threads. Both things are different problems and they're done for entirely different reasons. It's fine to take both of those things separately.

Also refer to page1, don't derail this thread and make it about dicks. Go to the dicks threads to talk about dicks.

On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:


Unless you are there actively advocating, then those philosophical questions you bring up (contemptuously?) are the only interesting thing to discuss. Rather than people merely shouting "it's bad!" or not, we have to attempt to define why. It's not a useless endeavor either; any position you can refine closer to certainty, especially in thorny issues such as this, can be generalized to other issues. It's kind of like how theoretical math is useless in itself yet finds important applications; same with philosophical discussion.



That is an unfair comment. Is an FGM thread a "pussy thread"? It's not about the genitalia, but rather the actions people are committing on other's bodies. This raises another question: does intent really matter? I see many people arguing on the grounds that FGM is bad *because* it is intended to control female sexuality. If the intent changes, is it less bad? Also I would say it's pretty hard for us to apply a universal intent on an act that is occurring across a wide spread of cultures and geography.

On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:
That is an unfair comment. Is an FGM thread a "pussy thread"? It's not about the genitalia, but rather the actions people are committing on other's bodies. This raises another question: does intent really matter? I see many people arguing on the grounds that FGM is bad *because* it is intended to control female sexuality. If the intent changes, is it less bad? Also I would say it's pretty hard for us to apply a universal intent on an act that is occurring across a wide spread of cultures and geography. If I remember right, Indonesia also practices FGM, and as I shared in the links earlier, the USA used to perform "medical" clitoridectomies less than a century ago.

On July 28 2013 01:30 Reason wrote:

If a male circumcision thread is a dick thread then yeah an FGM thread is a pussy thread. What's unfair about that? Page 1 mod note states not to discuss male circumcision in this thread and all he did is point that out.

The intention behind an act does not change the act, FGM is obviously bad but people are pointing out the "intent" behind it doesn't justify it in any way. If the intent was to save lives and if it wasn't done girls would die then it'd still be a horrible thing to do but it would be necessary, however controlling female sexuality in this manner isn't necessary, it's barbaric.

On July 28 2013 01:36 Djzapz wrote:

Look, disregard my comment about "dicks thread", I was just trying to make my point clear about the adjacent debate.

If you want to fiddle with semantics just for the hell of it, be my guest. This kind of stuff was fun to me a while ago but having been in a billion internet debates, it's actually getting tiring. Here we go: the end result is the same regardless of the justification. The "intent" matters only in that the intent is not a valid justification for the act.

FGM is bad because it's: 1- dangerous 2- serves no justified purpose.
We know this because 1- some kids die, others suffer, but all kids are maimed 2- the explanation ("intent") is despicable

I'm sure there are other reasons or intentions behind cutting female genitalia, but the explanation that is available to me doesn't weigh in in the balance as a justification. That's why the "intent" is useful to mention. And feel free to give me other explanations for FGM, odds are I'll be able to tell you why it's bullshit.

We can define other words if that exercise interests you.

On July 28 2013 02:06 Mothra wrote:


How about cleanliness, disease prevention and tradition? It doesn't matter that the claims are nonsense, because if FGM is bad because of danger and intent alone, then proponents can merely try to lessen the danger, and dispute whether the intent is good or bad (no need to prove, just endlessly dispute if that is a major part of the grounds for objecting to the practice). If consent and bodily integrity are clearly defined, then FGM cannot be justified no matter what intent is given, or if they do it hospitals to make it safer.

On July 28 2013 01:25 Mothra wrote:


Unless you are there actively advocating, then those philosophical questions you bring up (contemptuously?) are the only interesting thing to discuss. Rather than people merely shouting "it's bad!" or not, we have to attempt to define why. It's not a useless endeavor either; any position you can refine closer to certainty, especially in thorny issues such as this, can be generalized to other issues. It's kind of like how theoretical math is useless in itself yet finds important applications.

On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:

Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion.

On July 28 2013 02:17 GreenGringo wrote:
And why the hell would these "philosophical" questions only come up when brown people are involved? Why don't equivalent questions ever get raised when the subject is employee rights, or the minimum wage, or all kinds of other political/moral questions? On these questions, most pundits not only refrain from "deep thinking"; they're actually incredibly shallow. It's only when the "white guilt" factor comes into play that the deep questions get asked. And the reason they get asked is to kick up sand into the conversation and avoid committing to an opinion.

On July 28 2013 02:30 Mothra wrote:
The questions also seem to arise on abortion, police brutality, military, prisons etc. I don't think it's only rooted in race. Perhaps the closer the topic is to one's own life (examples you gave), the more likely one is to trust their own experience, and resist examining underlying beliefs.

On July 28 2013 02:23 ZenithM wrote:

Assuming that every human being can use "Rational judgement" to come up with the same conclusion is flawed anyway. In those countries, they're not using the same premises as you so they won't get to the same conclusion (that "FGM is bad").
For example, over there religious dogma is much more powerful than in western countries and can be the basis for a "reasoned" argument ("God wants A, hence B" is perfectly fine), which is kind of inconceivable for you.

So I agree with xMZ that in the end it comes down to a power struggle between cultures. If you want your "right thing" to prevail, fight and impose it on others.

And btw, there isn't really anything to discuss or debate in this thread, I'm sure nobody here actually support the practice :D. Good OP nonetheless, informative at least.

On July 28 2013 02:32 GreenGringo wrote:
Er, what? Care to give some examples of people questioning how you can know anything to be true, and what is pain, and how can you judge anything to be wrong (all questions we've seen raised in the current thread), in the context of abortion, military and prisons?

On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:

The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable.

On July 28 2013 02:42 docvoc wrote:

The fact here is that there is no real "actual right." This is all based on perception. Zenith, you are very right to point out cultural differences, I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but I have to quote your comment because of how on point it is. The U.N. exists in a Western way, whereas these countries don't. The differences because of this make us think the action is barbaric, which isn't the case for a lot of the people taking part in it. The process is slowly dying, for various reasons, and while I don't agree with it, we as westerners have no place telling other people that what they are doing is "objectively bad" even if we find the process detestable.

On July 28 2013 02:50 Mothra wrote:


So there is nothing objectively wrong with rape or murder either? The only bad thing about them is the possibility of getting caught?

On July 28 2013 02:44 Mothra wrote:


Well there was the discussion on whether or not solitary confinement is torture (pain). For abortion, the discussion centers around how can we know if an embryo is a human being, whether it feels pain and if that is relevant, and whether it is as wrong to kill a "potential" human as an actual one. For military actions there is often the question "do the ends justify the means", or if one can be punished for doing "wrong" if they acted with imperfect information? I would say the fundamental questions you are talking about underlie all those topics.

On July 28 2013 02:50 Mothra wrote:


So there is nothing objectively wrong with rape or murder either? The only bad thing about them is the possibility of getting caught?

On July 28 2013 02:56 docvoc wrote:

Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra.

On July 28 2013 02:56 docvoc wrote:

Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra.

On July 28 2013 02:56 docvoc wrote:

Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

On July 28 2013 02:56 docvoc wrote:

Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra.

On July 28 2013 02:56 docvoc wrote:

Let's throw out the worst things people can do to each other and say they are vaguely related to the topic at hand! No. There is a difference between a ritual that is accepted by a group of people as necessary for a women, one that the women in the area consent to (barring any of the bullshit "brainwashing" talk that people seem to think is any different than the cultures they live in) and someone raping a women, something she doesn't consent to at all. People consent to scarration all the time, or to labia/clitoris rings or piercings in western society, but I'm guessing that's all fine and dandy because it isn't called mutilation is it Mothra.

Just because I think something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong.

On July 28 2013 04:44 Shiori wrote:


Erm, then why do you think it's wrong? If you don't have a good reason, then why do you think it's wrong? If you do have a good reason, why doesn't your reason apply to people living outside of the West?

On July 28 2013 01:25 Falling wrote:
I don't your angle xmz. What are you getting at? That our outrage is only worth something if it is effacious through the means of war? That we should not condemn something unless we mean to conquer, but then we are just another Machiavellian imperialist?

In your mind, is there nothing in between defending the practice due to cultural relativism and an invasion over ideology?

On July 28 2013 04:38 dotHead wrote:
I'm not a big fan of doing anything, to anyone with out consent. That being said, I really feel like the 'Prime Directive" from Star Trek should be implemented when countries, and cultures are dealing with each other. Just because I think something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. Many cultures, do many things to their kids that some people think are crazy.

Scarification Rituals
+ Show Spoiler +

Piercings
+ Show Spoiler +

Ritual Penis Cutting
+ Show Spoiler +

These things are done with out consent, just like Male Circumcision in the west, which some people think is weird too.

I would kill someone if they tried to do this to circumcise my daughter, but I would also do the same if they tried to circumcise my son.

On July 28 2013 05:23 ZenithM wrote:
Edit: Nevermind, I won't get baited by the science troll.
And again, I don't know who you're arguing with, I don't think anybody here thinks that FGM is morally right. The point is: is it our place (us being, Western societies I guess?) to force them to stop that shit?

On July 28 2013 05:23 ZenithM wrote:
Edit: Nevermind, I won't get baited by the science troll.
And again, I don't know who you're arguing with, I don't think anybody here thinks that FGM is morally right. The point is: is it our place (us being, Western societies I guess?) to tell them to stop that shit?

On July 28 2013 03:59 KwarK wrote:

There are women who argue to this day that marital rape is acceptable and that a women's body belongs to her husband and if the husband wants to have sex with her then he has the right to, even if she does not consent to it. That doesn't make it less rape. You're using consent wrong.

On July 28 2013 05:34 Shival wrote:


None in particular.

As to your last point, why the heck do you involve western society into this, it's never been about that. If one argues from facts, do we ignore those facts simply because he's from a western society and blame him for cultural imperialism?

This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

On July 28 2013 05:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:


That's not marital rape. Not wanting to but doing it anyway without compulsion is giving consent.

Not wanting to and your husband threatens you for not doing your wifely duties (or whatever) or physically overpowers you would be no consent and thus rape.

"I don't want to but I'll do it anyway" is consent. "I don't want to and I won't" and then being compelled to through threats or violence is not consent.

You're using consent wrong.

He's not using consent wrong. You just took a completely ridiculous interpretation of what he said.

On July 28 2013 05:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:


That's not marital rape. Not wanting to but doing it anyway without compulsion is giving consent. It may be stupid and wrong in your eyes but it is not withholding consent.

Not wanting to and your husband threatens you for not doing your wifely duties (or whatever) or physically overpowers you would be no consent and thus rape.

"I don't want to but I'll do it anyway" is consent. "I don't want to and I won't" and then being compelled to through threats or violence is not consent.

You're using consent wrong.

On July 28 2013 05:49 Roe wrote:


If you don't want to do it, you're not giving consent. How is that hard to mix up?

On July 28 2013 05:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:


Nope. You're just saying something that's completely ridiculous because you don't like what I said.

It boggles the mind that people can think that a wholly internal decision can be characterized as one where consent is absent. Husband wants sex; wife doesn't but with no compulsion from him, because of her own beliefs, has sex with him. Where is the lack of consent? She decided to consent because of an internally felt obligation. Her husband is not controlling her decision-making. She is.

There are women who argue to this day that marital rape is acceptable and that a women's body belongs to her husband and if the husband wants to have sex with her then he has the right to, even if she does not consent to it.

On July 28 2013 05:54 DoubleReed wrote:


Right, a ridiculous interpretation of what he said.

He said:


He said the husband has sex with her even if she does not consent. That's what he said. Where the fuck did you get "wife doesn't want sex but does it anyway"? Nowhere. You pulled it out of your ass, trying to nitpick and derail.

On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?

On July 28 2013 06:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:


That is not what he said I think. It's odd that you accuse me of misrepresenting what he said when you are actually the one doing it, and the quote is right there. He said women arguing that a woman's body belongs to her husband so the husband taking his "rights" is not rape.

I am saying that his saying "she does not consent" is false. I'm saying the situation he posits is actually impossible. It contradicts itself.

If a woman is arguing that other women have to do that, then he is absolutely right and if that is the full extent and limit of what he said then I read what he wrote wrong and I am wrong. If that is the case then I made a good-faith mistake reading not carefully enough and I apologize. But I presume that a woman arguing that practices what she preaches, and in her case she would not be withholding consent.

Yes I am nitpicking because kwark needs to be nitpicked to keep him at least within a mile or two of the ground.

On July 28 2013 06:04 xM(Z wrote:

you go and kill them, softly; until they say - yes sir, you are right.

On July 28 2013 06:06 DoubleReed wrote:


Yes, he is talking about women who argue against marital rape laws. He is saying that misogynistic women are not at all hard to find.

On July 28 2013 06:10 ZenithM wrote:

Or you bury them under books until they say: "We're educated now, sir, and you are right."

On July 28 2013 05:41 ZenithM wrote:
Assuming that "this is objectively wrong", what now?

On July 28 2013 05:52 DeepElemBlues wrote:


If you don't want to do it and do it anyway with no one but you making the decision, how are you not giving consent? How is that hard to mix up? Consent is a personal issue.

No consent takes two to tango.

If my girlfriend asks me to go to the store to pick up tampons and I don't want to but I decide to do it anyway because she's my girlfriend and I feel an obligation to do what she asks, am I going to buy tampons without my consent? How exactly was I forced to do that when no one but me was making the decision?