What do you guys think of the practice of female genital mutilation?

 

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...

What the type of question is that?!?!?!?

I think those countries should practice male genital mutilation. Its only fair.

 

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...

What the type of question is that?!?!?!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

???

 

What do you mean?

 

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...

What the type of question is that?!?!?!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

???

 

What do you mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think he means is there anyone sane here who would approve of it?

Its nonconcentual mutilation of the body. It is torture.

 

Its like someone asking "Hey, what do you guys think of torturing someone and ripping pieces of their flesh off?"

 

Can we make a "duh" check here?

 

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...

What the type of question is that?!?!?!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

???

 

What do you mean?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think he means is there anyone sane here who would approve of it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah step up to the plate.

I think those countries should practice male genital mutilation. Its only fair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to some whiners, they do. Here, too.

 

That's only if you equate FGM with circumcision, which is tough to do within reason.

 

But what are we supposed to say? That we don't like it and don't think it should be practiced?

 

Great example to use against cultural relativists, though. Just watch them squirm when they venture to justify why this should even be allowed. Which I guess is the point of this thread. But it feels kind of bad to take something so gravely serious and use it as a blunt instrument.

 

There's a case pending here in the US, down in Georgia. African immigrants, sad stuff. They're trying to pin it on the father, but from the looks of it both parents were complicit, or at least had no problem with it until they broke up.

Edited December 26, 200619 yr by Pop

Circumcision is not even in the same boat of FGM because it is proven that circumcision has good medical benefit while FGM does not.

I think those countries should practice male genital mutilation. Its only fair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to some whiners, they do. Here, too.

 

That's only if you equate FGM with circumcision, which is tough to do within reason.

 

But what are we supposed to say? That we don't like it and don't think it should be practiced?

 

Great example to use against cultural relativists, though. Just watch them squirm when they venture to justify why this should even be allowed. Which I guess is the point of this thread. But it feels kind of bad to take something so gravely serious and use it as a blunt instrument.

 

There's a case pending here in the US, down in Georgia. African immigrants, sad stuff. They're trying to pin it on the father, but from the looks of it both parents were complicit, or at least had no problem with it until they broke up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but according to the cultural relativists, it isnt mutilation, its just female genital cutting, sort of like cutting a sheet of paper. "Mutilation" is a subjective and judgemental western imperialist word.

Edited December 26, 200619 yr by roshan

While I am most respectful and grateful for how this conversation has remained constructive, I also do feel that the topic at hand is on the 'cusp' of what is acceptable for Obsidian's fora. I will trust that the posting in this thread will remain civil and will maintain an awareness of the age diversity of the membership. Please do keep this in mind as you post.

Does it serve a medical purpose? No.

 

Its mutilation. Hey Roshan, let me rip off your thumbs, and you don't need two ears.

Edited December 26, 200619 yr by Sand

Does it serve a medical purpose?  No.

 

Its mutilation.  Hey Roshan, let me rip off your thumbs, and you don't need two ears.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I hope that you realize that I was being sarcastic!

 

But recently the UN has been moving away from using FGM and has started calling it cutting instead.

I really don't think we can expect much from this. I think we could learn more aboput it, all of us, so as to more appropriately move against it, but beyond that... I mean, what were you expecting?

 

Personally I feel nauseous about the very idea. I've talked to guys who actually espouse it, and they didn't change my mind. Enough?

Yeah, it sort of makes me nauseous too. I once read an article written by a European woman who had undergone the practice. She was quite enthusiastic in her defence of it. I will refrain from going into the details as per Fionavars request to be mindful of the forums younger audience.

Circumcision is not even in the same boat of FGM because it is proven that circumcision has good medical benefit while FGM does not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To be fair, it's not like people were doing circumcisions because it might lower the infection rate of HIV and such.

Relativists should at least draw the line biologically, thus this mutilation is an abomination.

Agreed. What is truly abominable is the fact this is forced on the female. She is not given a choice in the matter. I see it no more different that torturing an individual but then there are some sick ****s that enjoy torturing and maiming people in this world.

Edited December 26, 200619 yr by Sand

Circumcision is not even in the same boat of FGM because it is proven that circumcision has good medical benefit while FGM does not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you extrapolate on this?

 

To be fair, it's not like people were doing circumcisions because it might lower the infection rate of HIV and such.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Circumcision:

This rite, practised before, as some think, by divers races, was appointed by God to be the special badge of his chosen people, an abiding sign of their consecration to him. It was established as a national ordinance (Gen 17:10, Gen 17:11). In compliance with the divine command, Abraham, though ninety-nine years of age, was circumcised on the same day with Ishmael, who was thirteen years old (Gen 17:24). Slaves, whether homeborn or purchased, were circumcised (Gen 17:12, Gen 17:13); and all foreigners must have their males circumcised before they could enjoy the privileges of Jewish citizenship (Exo 12:48). During the journey through the wilderness, the practice of circumcision fell into disuse, but was resumed by the command of Joshua before they entered the Promised Land (Jos 5:2). It was observed always afterwards among the tribes of israel, although it is not expressly mentioned from the time of the settlement in Canaan till the time of Christ, about 1,450 years. The Jews prided themselves in the possession of this covenant distinction (Jdg 14:3; Jdg 15:18; Sa1 14:6; Sa1 17:26; Sa2 1:20; Eze 31:18). As a rite of the church it ceased when the New Testament times began (Gal 6:15; Col 3:11). Some Jewish Christians sought to impose it, however, on the Gentile converts; but this the apostles resolutely resisted (Act 15:1; Gal 6:12). Our Lord was circumcised, for it "became him to fulfil all righteousness," as of the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh; and Paul "took and circumcised" Timothy (Act 16:3), to avoid giving offence to the Jews. It would render Timothy's labours more acceptable to the Jews. But Paul would by no means consent to the demand that Titus should be circumcised (Gal 2:3). The great point for which he contended was the free admission of uncircumcised Gentiles into the church. He contended successfully in behalf of Titus, even in Jerusalem. In the Old Testament a spiritual idea is attached to circumcision. It was the symbol of purity (Isa 52:1). We read of uncircumcised lips (Exo 6:12, Exo 6:30), ears (Jer 6:10), hearts (Lev 26:41). The fruit of a tree that is unclean is spoken of as uncircumcised (Lev 19:23). It was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace as well as of the national covenant between God and the Hebrews. (1.) It sealed the promises made to Abraham, which related to the commonwealth of Israel, national promises. (2.) But the promises made to Abraham included the promise of redemption (Gal 3:14), a promise which has come upon us. The covenant with Abraham was a dispensation or a specific form of the covenant of grace, and circumcision was a sign and seal of that covenant. It had a spiritual meaning. It signified purification of the heart, inward circumcision effected by the Spirit (Deu 10:16; Deu 30:6; Eze 44:7; Act 7:51; Rom 2:28; Col 2:11). Under the Jewish dispensation, church and state were identical. No one could be a member of the one without also being a member of the other. Circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in both. Every circumcised person bore thereby evidence that he was one of the chosen people, a member of the church of God as it then existed, and consequently also a member of the Jewish commonwealth.

Informed consent is absent.

It should be pointed out that unlike circumcision, FGM is not affiliated with any spiritual or religious institution. It's connected by some to Islam, but that's an erroneous connection. It's almost exclusively a local African ritual practiced by any variety of people, christian or muslim or other. Not unlike "dry intercourse". Africa is ****ed up in just too many ways.

 

To be fair, it's not like people were doing circumcisions because it might lower the infection rate of HIV and such.

This is true, and in any case the health benefits of circumcision are rendered arbitrary by something as simple like condom use. But still, the case against FGM is much, much stronger. If circumcision is removal of the tips of the fingers, FGM by comparison is the removal of the arms. Functionality and sensation are both rendered null. Removal of the foreskin, if done correctly, lessens some pleasurable sensation at worst.

Hello? Eddo?

It should be pointed out that unlike circumcision, FGM is not affiliated with any spiritual or religious institution. It's connected by some to Islam, but that's an erroneous connection. It's almost exclusively a local African ritual practiced by any variety of people, christian or muslim or other. Not unlike "dry intercourse". Africa is ****ed up in just too many ways.

 

To be fair, it's not like people were doing circumcisions because it might lower the infection rate of HIV and such.

This is true, and in any case the health benefits of circumcision are rendered arbitrary by something as simple like condom use. But still, the case against FGM is much, much stronger. If circumcision is removal of the tips of the fingers, FGM by comparison is the removal of the arms. Functionality and sensation are both rendered null. Removal of the foreskin, if done correctly, lessens some pleasurable sensation at worst.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats true although two countries where the practice is common to the point of almost being universal are Egypt and Sudan which are Arabic countries so we shouldnt associate the practice with black africans in the same way that we shouldnt associate it with Islam. Among Arabs this seems to be an Egyptian-Sudanese regional thing as the practice seems to be absent in the Maghreb(Tunisia, Algeria etc) although some people in the Arabian peninsula do it as well.

And not that I would assume that this thread would be derailed in the early morn ... prudence seems to dictate a moment of quiet while mods take a moment to pause from the sandbox ...