United Nations Bans Female Genital Mutilation

Health • December 2012 • Views: 1,655

The United Nations General Assembly today passed unanimously a resolution banning the practice of Female Genital Mutilation. This significant milestone towards the ending of harmful practices and violations that constitute serious threat to the health of women and girls was taken by the 194 UN Member States, who approved five General Assembly resolutions today on advancing women’s rights, including one on intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilations (FGM).

Female Genital Mutilation affects about 100-140 million women and girls worldwide, and each year it is estimated that an additional three million girls are at risk of being subjected to the practice globally.

“This is a very important step to bringing about cultural and attitudinal change. Just as important though, is working on the ground with governments, communities and other partners to end FGM. UN Women’s experience in Burkina Faso, Benin and other countries shows that while efforts to criminalize FGM are vital, they need to be backed up with services for victims, engaging key influencers and supporting community-based activities to change social norms, as well as practical actions to bring perpetrators to justice,” said John Hendra, UN Women Assistant-Secretary General and Deputy Executive Director.

Recent Pages by ggt (Birth Control Works):
The Nationalist's Delusion Sorry Grumpy Cat, Study Finds Dogs Are Brainier Than Cats - Neuroscience News Republican Apostate Congressman Tells Black Anti-Abortion Rights Activist 'You're Ignorant' How Many American Women Die From Causes Related To... -- ProPublica

Jump to bottom

73 comments

rosiee Thu, Dec 20, 2012 6:36:43pm

Can someone explain to me, a 26 year old numpty how the U.N. would go about enforcing this. Doesn't this happen in small villages where there is little enforceability anyways? What will they do? Just more talk?

freetoken Thu, Dec 20, 2012 6:44:24pm

re: #1 rosiee

FEMA CAMPS!!

Dark_Falcon Thu, Dec 20, 2012 6:54:09pm

re: #1 rosiee

Can someone explain to me, a 26 year old numpty how the U.N. would go about enforcing this. Doesn't this happen in small villages where there is little enforceability anyways? What will they do? Just more talk?

It has only symbolic value, but for the General Assembly its actually a good thing.

Holidays are Family Fun Time Thu, Dec 20, 2012 7:07:00pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

It has only symbolic value, but for the General Assembly its actually a good thing.

And it's atrocious it took until 2012 to pass the ban.

I think it might give a little more authority to any aid workers that travel thru those villages. They can educate more and spread the word. It's a difficult cultural norm to extinguish. It also helps anyone within the culture wanting to change things an authority to reference. Sometimes, that is a good thing.

rosiee Thu, Dec 20, 2012 7:08:01pm

re: #3 Dark_Falcon

Seems like it's a step in the right direction, an admittance that there is a great wrong being perpetrated. The article doesn't mention if there were states who voted against the motion though.

EPR-radar Thu, Dec 20, 2012 7:09:10pm

re: #5 rosiee

According to the article, it was unanimous. That should help give it more weight.

Destro Thu, Dec 20, 2012 7:16:13pm

I hope we can one day ban infant male genital mutilation.

Holidays are Family Fun Time Thu, Dec 20, 2012 7:27:47pm

Never fails. The topic of FGM comes up and someone has to derail it to make it about males. Suprised, this time it is a guy. Usually it's women that tries to switch the topic.

rosiee Thu, Dec 20, 2012 7:28:27pm

re: #7 Destro

Banning a religious practice? I can see banning it being done regularly in hospitals but why the ancient Jewish practice?

Holidays are Family Fun Time Thu, Dec 20, 2012 7:44:20pm

re: #9 rosiee

Banning a religious practice? I can see banning it being done regularly in hospitals but why the ancient Jewish practice?

Because little boys private parts are more important than little girls. Don't engage the topic, it's counterproductive.

Dark_Falcon Thu, Dec 20, 2012 8:54:04pm

re: #10 Holidays are Family Fun Time

Because little boys private parts are more important than little girls. Don't engage the topic, it's counterproductive.

Roger Wilco.

Thusly:

re: #7 Destro

GAZE

Destro Thu, Dec 20, 2012 11:22:22pm

re: #9 rosiee

Banning a religious practice? I can see banning it being done regularly in hospitals but why the ancient Jewish practice?

Human sacrifice is a religous practice that is banned and the practice is done on infants. An 19 year old can do whatever he or she wants with their bodies but infants?

Destro Thu, Dec 20, 2012 11:23:34pm

re: #10 Holidays are Family Fun Time

Because little boys private parts are more important than little girls. Don't engage the topic, it's counterproductive.

They are EQUALLY important. Though I agree the damage done to the male private is less than that on the female but it is still the mutilation of an infant.

Tigger2 Fri, Dec 21, 2012 1:47:10am

Scared me when I first read it I thought it said " United Nations Bans Female Genital Manipulation" lol

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 2:50:09am

re: #7 Destro

I hope we can one day ban infant male genital mutilation.

Do you want to bad ballet and contact football for kids?

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:55:52am

re: #15 Obdicut

Do you want to bad ballet and contact football for kids?

Heh. Ban ballet, I mean, though 'do you want to bad ballet' sounds funky-awesome.

Rather than play rhetorical slap-fight, lemme just lay out the normal argument here.

1. Male circumcision and FGM are almost entirely unrelated, and those conflating them are doing an enormous disservice to women affected by FGM.

2. Male circumcision is medically recommended by WHO since uncircumcised men are at a greater risk for transmission of HIV.

3. Other than that, the medical literature in general has a very slight lean to circumcision being more beneficial than harmful.

4. We have our kids do many, many, many, many more harmful and dangerous things, unnecessary things, like football and ballet, things that have the chance to kill and permanently injure them.

4a. The immediate rebuttal to this is that kids have a choice if they want to do that, and for those who claim that, I invite them to re-examine childhood. Most kids wind up doing a lot of stuff they don't really want to do because their parents want them to; moreover, it's impossible for a seven year old girl to really evaluate the damage that ballet is going to do to her body.

5. A hell of a lot of the time, you're going to find virulent anti-Semites as some of the loudest voices against circumcision. This became real clear in California with the ridiculously racist white supremacist Foreskin Man comics, but it's unfortunately common.

SidewaysQuark Fri, Dec 21, 2012 10:19:39am

re: #16 Obdicut

Heh. Ban ballet, I mean, though 'do you want to bad ballet' sounds funky-awesome.

Rather than play rhetorical slap-fight, lemme just lay out the normal argument here.

1. Male circumcision and FGM are almost entirely unrelated, and those conflating them are doing an enormous disservice to women affected by FGM.

2. Male circumcision is medically recommended by WHO since uncircumcised men are at a greater risk for transmission of HIV.

3. Other than that, the medical literature in general has a very slight lean to circumcision being more beneficial than harmful.

4. We have our kids do many, many, many, many more harmful and dangerous things, unnecessary things, like football and ballet, things that have the chance to kill and permanently injure them.

4a. The immediate rebuttal to this is that kids have a choice if they want to do that, and for those who claim that, I invite them to re-examine childhood. Most kids wind up doing a lot of stuff they don't really want to do because their parents want them to; moreover, it's impossible for a seven year old girl to really evaluate the damage that ballet is going to do to her body.

5. A hell of a lot of the time, you're going to find virulent anti-Semites as some of the loudest voices against circumcision. This became real clear in California with the ridiculously racist white supremacist Foreskin Man comics, but it's unfortunately common.

What you said.

The fact that it's a religious practice, however, as another poster put it, should be completely irrelevant to its evaluation.

Destro Fri, Dec 21, 2012 10:22:26am

re: #16 Obdicut

re: #17 SidewaysQuark

Regarding comment #5:

[Link: www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org...]

We are a group of educated and enlightened Jews who realize that the barbaric, primitive, torturous, and mutilating practice of circumcision has no place in modern Judaism.

Rabbi Moses Maimonides himself acknowledged that circumcision is done to desensitize the penis and curb masturbation.

Jews are some of the smartest people in the world. We are 1/3rd of 1% of the population, yet we hold 33% of Nobel prizes. We are smart enough to understand that mutilating a little boys' penis is not an acceptable practice in modern times.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 10:48:16am

re: #18 Destro

Regarding comment #5 what? Do you just not know what "A hell of a lot of the time" means, or something?

Care to try on any of the other points?

Dark_Falcon Fri, Dec 21, 2012 11:07:11am

re: #19 Obdicut

Regarding comment #5 what? Do you just not know what "A hell of a lot of the time" means, or something?

Care to try on any of the other points?

Destro just enjoys arguing with you, just like he gets into online skirmishes with me and Researchok. He enjoys the conflict.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 11:10:11am

re: #20 Dark_Falcon

Destro just enjoys arguing with you, just like he gets into online skirmishes with me and Researchok. He enjoys the conflict.

Then why does he suck at it?

Dark_Falcon Fri, Dec 21, 2012 12:37:27pm

re: #21 Obdicut

Then why does he suck at it?

Why do wingnuts try to "prove" that Charles is wrong on AGW, only to beclown themselves time and against. Maybe people who like battles of wit they can't win derive some form of satisfaction from getting their asses kick.

Just a thought.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 2:40:43pm

re: #7 Destro

I hope we can one day ban infant male genital mutilation.

Oh what a horrible thing to say! You monster! Faints!/////

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 2:44:46pm

re: #15 Obdicut

Do you want to bad ballet and contact football for kids?

Did you get permission from the World Compendium Of Groundbreakingly Appalling Analogies for using that?

I seriously hope so. lol

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 2:48:01pm

re: #20 Dark_Falcon

Destro just enjoys arguing with you, just like he gets into online skirmishes with me and Researchok. He enjoys the conflict.

Is that what happens when Obdicut gets into arguments with you and researchok too? Because that happens with (at least) equal frequency.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 2:55:37pm

re: #24 Jimmah

Did you get permission from the World Compendium Of Groundbreakingly Appalling Analogies for using that?

I seriously hope so. lol

Then go ahead and address the issue, Jimmah, instead of just saying LOL. I'm perfectly fine having a debate.

The analogy is obviously imperfect, as any analogy is. But the argument against circumcision, when it's not resting on the mystical idea of body intactness being sacred, is on a harm being done to the child. A small percentage of circumcisions do result in harm. At worst, any operation can result in death due to an infection.

However, these risk are present, and greater, in a ton of other activities that we have no problem having kids to, either voluntarily or involuntarily. You previously claimed that kids can just say no to their parents if they don't want to do something. This is obviously insufficient for two reasons: Kids want to please their parents, and many kids are really unable to say no to their parents when they're scared of something. In addition, kids can't adequately judge risk-- left to their own, kids would pick a lot of dangerous activities, not realizing how dangerous they were.

So, by making kids do ballet and football, we really are risking their lives, and in the case of ballet, changing their bodies. The feet of ballet dancers actually do change from what they do, so this would also violate any argument about harm resting on changing the kids body.

Both ballet and football have upsides to them, as well, in terms of getting the kids exercise and potentially providing them with team spirit rah rah, but there are obviously much safer ways for them to get exercise so that's not really a defense of these activities.

Circumcision gets singled out because it has to do with sex, and for some people with religion, and for some people with culture.

iceweasel Fri, Dec 21, 2012 2:55:39pm

re: #8 Holidays are Family Fun Time

Never fails. The topic of FGM comes up and someone has to derail it to make it about males. Suprised, this time it is a guy. Usually it's women that tries to switch the topic.

I agree with Destro on this, but I've updinged you because I totally see what you're saying.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 2:57:59pm

re: #26 Obdicut

The analogy is obviously imperfect, as any analogy is.

It's patently fucking ludicrous.

Besides, since when was forcing kids to take part in sporting etc events/pastimes that they hate a cool thing?

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:08:38pm

re: #28 Jimmah

It's patently fucking ludicrous.

Besides, since when was forcing kids to take part in sporting etc events/pastimes that they hate a cool thing?

It's not patently ludicrous, Jimmah. Calling it that isn't going to make it go away.

And the analogy isn't to forcing kids to do things they hate.

I see two contentions against circumcision:

1. Circumcision shouldn't be performed because the kids can't consent to the modification of their body.

This one is the one that seems mystical to me, because this idea of body intactness being sacred it kind of weird. However, even if we treat it as valid, there's a shitload of other things we do that modify kids bodies-- cosmetic orthodontics being one (minorly defensible on the grounds that people are shallow fucks who'll judge people with crooked teeth), and ballet being another good example. The only way that you can see the bone deformation of ballet as better, and not worse, than circumcision is from a non-medical, mystical point of view that holds body intactness as somehow sacred.

2. Circumcision shouldn't be performed because it sometimes causes harm to the child.

This is pretty much covered by the above, but it's worthwhile reiterating that the WHO recommends circumcision since it reduces the rate of AIDS transmission. The medical literature is divided on the sexual effect of circumcision, with no solid research showing that there is any 'desensitization' or anything else. There are mutually contradicting studies showing both circumcised and uncircumcised men happier with their sexual, ah, stuff. In terms of disease transmission, it is slightly better to be circumcised, you're less at risk of passing on disease. And again, a very small number of people experience complications, but we are fine with kids undergoing much more risky activities-- like playing soccer, which has the certainty, rather than the possibility, of microconcussions.

If you want to make an argument, then make an argument. Just asserting "It's patently obvious" doesn't do much.

And please, please stop piggybacking circumcision on FGM. It is totally, totally trivializing what FGM is and the harm that it does. If you make people think that FGM is like circumcision, the most likely effect of that is to make people think that FGM is not a big deal. So please, please stop associating the two.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:09:37pm

As a pastor of the religion of Earlobetology, I find it rather distasteful that some ignorant people object to the removal of infants earlobes(a mostly harmless procedure btw - just the occasional death from complications, nothing too serious) with no serious consequences to the functioning of the individual. //

There is a problem with this analogy, too - because unlike circumcision, either female or male, the removal of earlobes doesn't cut off a room in the mansion of sexual pleasure for life.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:11:25pm

re: #29 Obdicut

This one is the one that seems mystical to me, because this idea of body intactness being sacred it kind of weird.

That is one the weirdest and most morally inexplicable things I have seen posted on the internet in a long time.

Wow.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:11:49pm

re: #30 Jimmah

There is a problem with this analogy, too - because unlike circumcision, either female or male, the removal of earlobes doesn't cut off a room in the mansion of sexual pleasure for life.

This claim isn't supported by the medical literature, though.

Even wiki can show you that.

And again: Please, please stop associating FGM and circumcision. By equating the two, you really, really run the risk of some guy who's circumcised, like me, and knows that he enjoys sex immensely and without any problems in the least, will go "Oh, well FGM musn't be that big a deal then."

If you can make an argument against circumcision, do so, but don't piggyback on FGM. It's cheap as hell.

iceweasel Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:12:52pm

re: #31 Jimmah

That is one the weirdest and most morally inexplicable things I have seen posted on the internet in a long time.

Wow.

The idea of NOT scarring or mutilating your body in some way is some mystical shit. Yeah.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:13:18pm

re: #32 Obdicut

And again: Please, please stop associating FGM and circumcision. By equating the two, you really, really run the risk of some guy who's circumcised, like me, and knows that he enjoys sex immensely and without any problems in the least, will go "Oh, well FGM musn't be that big a deal then."

You would enjoy it even more if you hadn't been - but you can never know that, can you?

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:14:35pm

re: #34 Jimmah

You would enjoy it even more if you hadn't been - but you can never know that, can you?

I'm sorry, Jimmah, but since I know that science doesn't actually back you up on this, attempts to make me sad panda about sex aren't really going to work.

Buck Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:16:30pm

Jimmah and Destro have already beaten this subject to death.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I add this link so that everyone can save time and just cut and paste their points.

Nothing new to add.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:17:02pm

re: #32 Obdicut

And again: Please, please stop associating FGM and circumcision. By equating the two, you really, really run the risk of some guy who's circumcised, like me, and knows that he enjoys sex immensely and without any problems in the least, will go "Oh, well FGM musn't be that big a deal then."

Please stop trying to claim that I'm equating the two as if they are exactly the same - lost count of how many times I've explained to you that I'm not. As you must by now know.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:17:32pm

re: #33 iceweasel

The idea of NOT scarring or mutilating your body in some way is some mystical shit. Yeah.

It is, when you start using language like 'mutilation'. People who are circumcised aren't mutilated, and when you start talking that way, it gets weird really, really fast. I have scars, too, from other stuff in childhood and don't feel mutilated by them, either.

Can you explain to me the substantive difference between circumcising someone and having them train in ballet, knowing that in the former medical literature considers it a mild medical benefit, and that the latter does literally deform the bones of the feet?

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:19:45pm

re: #37 Jimmah

Please stop trying to claim that I'm equating the two as if they are exactly the same - lost count of how many times I've explained to you that I'm not. As you must by now know.

But I didn't say that you were doing that, Jimmah. I said by piggybacking them together you run the risk of conflating them in people's minds. If you say that FGM is like circumcision, but worse-- if you continue to make the unscientific claims about sexual function being affected, basically, while linking it with FGM, you weaken the harm in people's mind of FGM.

Make all the threads you want talking about circumcision. Don't steal from an issue that doesn't get enough attention anyway, and don't associate them so that people think that FGM is anywhere close to the level of neutral effect that circumcision is.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:23:32pm

If you guys want to make an actual argument, it's going to have to be more than expressions of moral outrage and asserting invalid analogies. You have to make actual arguments if you want to convince people. Otherwise, this just becomes an issue that you can shout about, but it's not going to move.

I'm a guy who's changed his mind on a hell of a lot of shit in his life. If there is real, substantive harm from circumcision, you can convince me of it and change my mind. I don't even feel like you're trying in the least to actually make an argument. You seem to be relying on just assuming a group of people immediately believes you because of the bodily intactness argument. It does seem to be the default state of a hell of a lot of people, though like you, they never apply it to anything else other than circumcision.

I've got plenty of respect for your guys' abilities to make arguments, and respect for your ethics. I don't understand why you make this kind of kayfabe attempt at argument. I guess maybe you really do feel just an absolute moral certitude on the subject. If so, we aren't ever going to get anywhere with this.

iceweasel Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:23:34pm

re: #33 iceweasel

The idea of NOT scarring or mutilating your body in some way is some mystical shit. Yeah

re: #38 Obdicut

It is, when you start using language like 'mutilation'.

No, actually, it was your claim that there is some weird idea of bodily intactness which is, according to you, some mystical shit. I mocked you by pointing out that keeping the body intact is surely the default position and those who claim otherwise have the burden of proof.

People who are circumcised aren't mutilated,

That's the question. Begging it won't get you anything.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:23:42pm

re: #35 Obdicut

I'm sorry, Jimmah, but since I know that science doesn't actually back you up on this, attempts to make me sad panda about sex aren't really going to work.

I don't think science proper has can really have much to say on the subject of comparing subjective experienced in a quantitative manner at this point.

As far as I'm aware David Chalmers consciousness meter is still a rhetorical instrument.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:25:09pm

re: #41 iceweasel

No, actually, it was your claim that there is some weird idea of bodily intactness which is, according to you, some mystical shit. I mocked you by pointing out that keeping the body intact is surely the default position and those who claim otherwise have the burden of proof.

But it's not the default position, or we wouldn't let kids do so many things that alter and damage their bodies. Like ballet, and soccer.

The mystical bit is thinking that giving a kid micro-concussions doesn't violate body intactness and cutting off skin does.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:27:02pm

re: #43 Obdicut

But it's not the default position, or we wouldn't let kids do so many things that alter and damage their bodies. Like ballet, and soccer.

But we are not talking about 'letting' children have circumcisions, we are talking about them being done to them.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:28:07pm

re: #41 iceweasel

Um, then you're begging the question too, by talking about is as mutilation. So sure, we can both agree to say we'll step back from calling it either mutilated or unmutilated, and then ask if it's mutilated.

So what does mutilation mean? I don't think my penis looks mutilated, and while people who are very parochial from one culture or another may be freaked out by a circumcised or uncircumcised penis, that's not really that big a deal. The studies on sexual sensation have come to no firm conclusion on effect on sex, but it obviously isn't very high or we'd be able to observe that. So what is your basis for calling it mutilation?

iceweasel Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:28:16pm

re: #43 Obdicut

But it's not the default position, or we wouldn't let kids do so many things that alter and damage their bodies. Like ballet, and soccer.

"We"? You're talking about ballet and soccer! Not activities which most children, even in the developed world, engage in.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:29:08pm

re: #44 Jimmah

But we are not talking about 'letting' children have circumcisions, we are talking about them being done to them.

Okay, then replace 'letting' with 'making' or 'encouraging' or whatever, Mr. Bold man. Eight year old kid playing soccer because his dad said it's a good idea and he likes his dad. And trusts him. How does that change the ethics of this for you?

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:30:43pm

re: #45 Obdicut

The studies on sexual sensation have come to no firm conclusion on effect on sex

See my #42.

Decatur Deb Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:30:44pm

re: #45 Obdicut

Um, then you're begging the question too, by talking about is as mutilation. So sure, we can both agree to say we'll step back from calling it either mutilated or unmutilated, and then ask if it's mutilated.

...snip.. don't think my penis looks mutilated, and while people who are very parochial from one culture or another may be freaked out by a circumcised or uncircumcised penis, that's not really that big a deal. ...snip, snip....

The number of people who have seen my penis is surprisingly small.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:30:49pm

re: #46 iceweasel

"We"? You're talking about ballet and soccer! Not activities which most children, even in the developed world, engage in.

Why is it relevant whether most children do it or not? They're just examples. My point is that if the contention is circumcision should be banned on the grounds of harm to the child's body, those activities should be banned too.

If we're not talking about banning the activity, just tut-tutting about it, then that's cool.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:32:16pm

re: #48 Jimmah

See my #42.

I did, and the claim "It's all subjective" is neither convincing nor, I think, true-- we study a lot of sensory stuff with science and can come to conclusions about it based on behavior.

Even if it were true that we couldn't judge it, then why do you assume that circumcised people don't have the better sex between the two groups? Because I can tell you sex feels fucking astonishingly amazingly good, better than anything in the world could possibly fucking feel. So if it's all subjective, maybe circumcised people enjoy sex more. That argument goes nowhere.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:35:22pm

re: #47 Obdicut

Eight year old kid playing soccer because his dad said it's a good idea and he likes his dad. And trusts him. How does that change the ethics of this for you?

How many eight year old boys show up to be circumcised because their dad said it was a good idea?
And even if they did. how would that justify circumscising infants who are incapable of expressing an opinion on the matter?

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:40:22pm

re: #51 Obdicut

Because I can tell you sex feels fucking astonishingly amazingly good, better than anything in the world could possibly fucking feel.

Compared to what? You don't have the option of making a meaningful comparison based on your own subjective experience.

And how can anyone say that what they have felt is better that what is possible? Is there a science of this? lol

iceweasel Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:40:24pm

re: #50 Obdicut

Why is it relevant whether most children do it or not? They're just examples. My point is

It's relevant because you offered the comparison as though it were analogous. It's not.

Your point, such as it appears to be, seems to be that you and your mutilated (!) penis definitely have awesome sex. I hope you do. That doesn't mean that you're not missing something-- sorry to say, and it's not something Americans want to hear.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:41:59pm

re: #52 Jimmah

How many eight year old boys show up to be circumcised because their dad said it was a good idea?r?

I think you missed the question, Jimmah. I asked you to explain how it changes the ethics whether a kid is convinced to do something by their parent vs. having it done to them. Kids will do almost anything their parents ask them to, if the parent stresses it is important. Kids will do painful things, like getting dentistry or immunizations, and tiring and difficult things. Kids cannot really give consent. During this time period where kids can't really meaningfully consent, parents make them, convince them, whatever verb you want to use, to engage in activities that are harmful, like playing soccer or doing ballet.

So if the contention is that we shouldn't allow parents to do any harm their children, or potential harm, how do the ethics change when it's a parent convincing a kid to get circumcised?

There have been and are cultures where circumcision is done at older ages. It still has a 100% adherence rate. The Xhosa, for example, circumcise boys as the sign of reaching adulthood, usually around thirteen.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:42:11pm

And so it was said that the downdings shall raineth gently through the night.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:43:55pm

re: #53 Jimmah

Compared to what? You don't have the option of making a meaningful comparison based on your own subjective experience.

And neither do you. That's my point.

And how can anyone say that what they have felt is better that what is possible? Is there a science of this? lol

It's pretty interesting, but it often keys off of semantics. Basically, you can analyze someone's language to see how enthused they are about stuff in general-- get them to describe their favorite activities, foods, and note what superlatives they use and how many and the rest. By mapping these activities and the superlative use against each other, you can get somewhat of an idea of how they feel about each. Obviously, this has a heavy psychological as well as a physical component, but when you're comparing as in this case it doesn't matter, you're comparing like to like.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:45:47pm

re: #54 iceweasel

It's relevant because you offered the comparison as though it were analogous. It's not.

It is analogous. Not all children get circumcised, either. I have no idea why you think not everyone playing soccer means that it's not analogous.

Your point, such as it appears to be, seems to be that you and your mutilated (!) penis definitely have awesome sex. I hope you do. That doesn't mean that you're not missing something-- sorry to say, and it's not something Americans want to hear

And it doesn't mean that uncircumcised guys aren't missing something, too, if it's the case that circumcision improves sex.

If you're going to say it's just subjective, it's obviously silly to then claim that your subjective experience is definitely better.

It's entirely possible that uncircumcised sex is even better. It's possible circumcised sex is better. I'm not going to spend any time sweating it, because sex is fucking awesome.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:47:46pm

re: #57 Obdicut

And neither do you. That's my point.

Yes I do. I could if i wish get a circumcision and then I would know. You can't know what its like to have a foreskin- that option has been taken from you.

That's my point. Well, one of them.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:48:05pm

re: #56 Jimmah

And so it was said that the downdings shall raineth gently through the night.

I hope it's okay that I'm not bothering to downding you guys.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:50:10pm

re: #60 Obdicut

I hope it's okay that I'm not bothering to downding you guys.

You don't need to, as I said earlier they will rain gently on us during the night as they always do on this subject.

Jimmah Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:52:29pm

re: #60 Obdicut

I hope it's okay that I'm not bothering to downding you guys.

Ps you actually did downding us anyway. lol

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:52:37pm

re: #59 Jimmah

Yes I do. I could if i wish get a circumcision and then I would know. You can't know what its like to have a foreskin- that option has been taken from you.

That's my point. Well, one of them.

No, an adult circumcision wouldn't actually be the same, I don't think. You wouldn't know what it was like to be circumcised as a child, just as an adult. Likewise, neither of us know what it's like to be circumcised as a 13 year old, as an Xhosa might. That's been 'taken' from us too, by time.

The science of that doesn't work because if the difference were that large, then reviews of people who had adult circumcisions would have already revealed this big difference, and it hasn't. The uptake on adult circumcision in Africa hasn't been large-- unsurprisingly-- but none of the after-reviews have shown a significant decrease in sensation.

Finally, if the argument is that circumcision removes the choice to first fuck while circumcised and then while not to compare the two and answer the question of which is better, that seems a little bit like a corner case.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 3:58:05pm

re: #62 Jimmah

Ps you actually did downding us anyway. lol

I downdinged you when you were fucking around with FGM and trying to conflate it with circumcision, because I really hate that shit. I'm not bothering to downding you guys now. I hope this is at least helping you think through your stuff and understand why the simple moral outrage position isn't that efficacious.

Like I said, I'm a convincable guy. Telling me my penis is mutilated, that you have better sex and you just know this because, that a father convincing a kid to play soccer and get microconcussions is just somehow fundamentally different and not actually changing body intactness, and that circumcision means I can never compare-and-contrast circumcised and uncircumcised sex-- that's not going to convince me.

A significant number of new studies showing a change in sensation would convince me. A reason why the potential (and with some sports, certain) harm that we inflict on children by convincing them to play contact sports or do ballet or whatever the hell else is really, really different than the potential harm from circumcision would.

I'm going to be heading off to a party soon. I'm sorry to ggt for the lengthy threadback of a woman's issue over to a man's issue, and I promise I won't address any circumcision stuff in the next FGM thread. I hope you can refrain from it as well; I'm happy to engage with you in an actual circumcision-related thread.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Dec 21, 2012 5:14:28pm

re: #61 Jimmah

You don't need to, as I said earlier they will rain gently on us during the night as they always do on this subject.

Not from me, the only person I've downdinged on this thread is Destro. But I'd say Buck didn't really deserve a downding. He was making the point that we went over this issue extensively earlier this year and he saw nothing being added above that discussion. Agree or disagree, that's well within the boundaries.

Destro Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:11:19pm

re: #19 Obdicut

Regarding comment #5 what? Do you just not know what "A hell of a lot of the time" means, or something?

Care to try on any of the other points?

I don't know what "a hell of a lot of time" is. What is that in an actual quantifiable mathematical index? and what doe sthat have to do with continuing the cutting off an infants foreskin so the blood can be extracted to please the imaginary child killing god originating amongst bronze age peoples?

Destro Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:14:21pm

re: #28 Jimmah

It's patently fucking ludicrous.

Besides, since when was forcing kids to take part in sporting etc events/pastimes that they hate a cool thing?

I like how he and his pal Dark wing there come up with these counter arguments that are lame and then pat themselves on the back like they scored some points.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:42:50pm

re: #66 Destro

I don't know what "a hell of a lot of time" is. What is that in an actual quantifiable mathematical index? and what doe sthat have to do with continuing the cutting off an infants foreskin so the blood can be extracted to please the imaginary child killing god originating amongst bronze age peoples?

That's not why I was circumcised. Nor is it why the WHO recommends circumcision.

You really, really suck at making arguments. Like, so bad I often wonder if you're like Killgore, a performance artist.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:43:16pm

re: #67 Destro

I like how he and his pal Dark wing there come up with these counter arguments that are lame and then pat themselves on the back like they scored some points.

Totally! Those guys are grody, man.

Destro Fri, Dec 21, 2012 10:08:44pm

re: #68 Obdicut

That's not why I was circumcised. Nor is it why the WHO recommends circumcision.

You really, really suck at making arguments. Like, so bad I often wonder if you're like Killgore, a performance artist.

The WHO recommending circumcision to help prevent AIDS while controversial is because in Africa they lag in condom use thanks to religion and outdated machismo customs. They don't have this problem in say, Europe with uncircumcised men and AIDS.

So are you arguing for circumcisions for medical reasons being done and not allowed for religious reasons? Because in one case (medical) on infants it can be justified but in the other (religious hocus pocus) it can not be. I could at least justify that to my kid. A) Son, we had to circumcise you to help you not get AIDS one day. Gee, thanks, Dad. I wish you did not have to but it makes sense. Compared to explanation B) Son, I had to circumcise you because the God we worship is kind of loco and demands we do this or else this invisible scary God we worship will be real angry(see God almost killing Moses over it). Son looks on in horror realizing that he was mutilated based on a primitive fairy tale.

And I have no idea you are circumcised and why or when it was done to you. But if it was done to you as an adult, it was your choice to lose a part of your body and if done to you as an infant it was not your choice. And that is the difference.

Dark_Falcon Sat, Dec 22, 2012 3:18:23am

re: #66 Destro

I don't know what "a hell of a lot of time" is. What is that in an actual quantifiable mathematical index? and what does that have to do with continuing the cutting off an infants foreskin so the blood can be extracted to please the imaginary child killing god originating amongst bronze age peoples?

Circumcision isn't done "so the blood can be extracted", I don't know of any culture that performs it for that reason. Your phrasing makes it seem like seem like something its not.

Destro Sat, Dec 22, 2012 12:11:36pm

re: #71 Dark_Falcon

Of course it is. It is a blood letting ritual in its origins. The blood is extracted from a sucking action on the boy's penis - by mouth (yes) or now mostly by a suction device.

This is similar to other world wide religous rituals regarding the penis like the Meso-American ritual of piercing the foreskin to extract blood as an offering to the gods.

Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Dec 22, 2012 8:50:04pm

Yep, a thread with 72 posts about penises.

Under a topic about mutilating little girls.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!