Iraqi jihadists order genital mutilation of all women

[recovering conservative]

High Threshold;1461179 wrote: I am just dying to ask but I think I'll wait for you to volunteer.
????????

Like I said, I don't sign in to Youtube! Just give me the synopsis of what the point was on the video.

I don't believe this is true.


Well, guess what! Now that we have the internet, it's easy to look up and answer a lot of questions and issues that get argued over a few drinks.

Here's a good place to start - seems someone has taken the time to produce a one hour documentary on the subject: The Perfect Vagina



And...even better...in many ways it circles back to the FGM issue in a surprising way:

Women are undergoing surgery to create perfect genitalia amid a "shocking" lack of information on the potential risks of the procedure, a report says. Research published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology also questions the very notion of aesthetically pleasing genitals.

Operations to improve the appearance of the sex organs for both psychological and physical reasons are on the rise. But surgeons said the report overplayed the risks of an established procedure. Researchers from University College London reviewed all the existing studies on cosmetic labial surgery - which generally involves reducing the amount of tissue that protrudes from the lips which cover the vagina. They found there had been little work to document any longer-term side effects.

Labioplasty, as it is known, costs about £3,000 privately and is offered for a variety of reasons: some women complain that wearing tight clothes or riding a bike is uncomfortable, while others say they are embarrassed in front of a sexual partner.


And....you don't need to sign in to Youtube or some porn site to watch it:



So, why are women spending thousands of dollars risking their health and potentially even their lives having a procedure done that intermeshes with FGM...since that is the purpose behind some of those FGM operations? I don't know, but here's a plausible theory for this sudden obsession with "The Perfect Vagina" -

On Designer Vaginas and Media Influence

Labiaplasty is on the rise. Who knew?

There's an article in the Guardian in which Daisy Buchanan argues that we can't blame porn for this rush towards plastic surgery to pretty-up our lady bits because it's everywhere; in mainstream music videos we can see about as much as porn shows.

I'm not sure what bands Buchanan follows, but I haven't see much in the way of actual labias in my regular, mainstream video-watching, nor in any of the movies I watch - and I watch a lot of movies. Even Miley Cyrus doesn't actually show her junk. So, if men are complaining enough for women to save up cash and courage to go through with this, then clearly porn is to blame for this significant cultural shift. But I do agree with Buchanan that we're seeing a whole lot more skin these days, and I wonder if labias are next.




Playboy was THE ONLY such magazine “back then”.
When I came of age, Penthouse was the most highly prized mag, and there were lots of fly-by-night operators that produced a few issues and went out of business or changed names frequently.

[High Threshold]

recovering conservative;1461282 wrote:

Here's a good place to start - seems someone has taken the time to produce a one hour documentary on the subject: The Perfect Vagina



And...even better...in many ways it circles back to the FGM issue in a surprising way:

And....you don't need to sign in to Youtube or some porn site to watch it:



So, why are women spending thousands of dollars risking their health and potentially even their lives having a procedure done that intermeshes with FGM...since that is the purpose behind some of those FGM operations? I don't know, but here's a plausible theory for this sudden obsession with "The Perfect Vagina" -

On Designer Vaginas and Media Influence


I thought you said you couldn't access it? This is the documentary film I was telling you about.

And as I said .......



High Threshold;1461097 wrote: Note it's stated a couple of times in the film that these women who claim it's to be more attractive for their men might find that men are not in agreement at all.

[Bruv]

Funny how this thread has swung around from being about an anti Islamist rumour concerning FGM issued by an allegedly male dominated religion, into a male dominated thread about the aesthetics of female genitalia.

[LarsMac]

recovering conservative;1461282 wrote: ????????

Like I said, I don't sign in to Youtube! Just give me the synopsis of what the point was on the video.



Well, guess what! Now that we have the internet, it's easy to look up and answer a lot of questions and issues that get argued over a few drinks.

Here's a good place to start - seems someone has taken the time to produce a one hour documentary on the subject: The Perfect Vagina



And...even better...in many ways it circles back to the FGM issue in a surprising way:

And....you don't need to sign in to Youtube or some porn site to watch it:



So, why are women spending thousands of dollars risking their health and potentially even their lives having a procedure done that intermeshes with FGM...since that is the purpose behind some of those FGM operations? I don't know, but here's a plausible theory for this sudden obsession with "The Perfect Vagina" -

On Designer Vaginas and Media Influence





When I came of age, Penthouse was the most highly prized mag, and there were lots of fly-by-night operators that produced a few issues and went out of business or changed names frequently.


Isn't this just another form of FGM?

[FourPart]

In this instance it's a matter of choice.

In the same way you could argue that Consensual Sex & Rape are pretty much the same thing. It's only Sex after all.

[High Threshold]

Bruv;1461294 wrote: Funny how this thread has swung around from being about an anti Islamist rumour concerning FGM issued by an allegedly male dominated religion, into a male dominated thread about the aesthetics of female genitalia.


Would it gain legitimacy if my wife were to register and reissue my posts?

[recovering conservative]

High Threshold;1461292 wrote: I thought you said you couldn't access it? This is the documentary film I was telling you about.

And as I said .......


That's good, but why didn't you tell me anything about the movie before? My link is from the documentary film site that is hosting that movie, and it has no BS proof of age restriction....though, for the life of me, I don't understand how Youtube would consider it porn just because it shows a few vaginas. They can't tell the difference between porn and educational material!

Originally Posted by High Threshold View Post

Note it's stated a couple of times in the film that these women who claim it's to be more attractive for their men might find that men are not in agreement at all.
Sure, but what does it matter. There's obviously no unanimous agreement on any subject. The point is that back in the 70's...when men's magazines first started showing genitalia, there were no judgments made on what looks good/what looks bad....maybe a lot of guys just wanted to see what they looked like. I remember one guy in high school, when a magazine was being passed around, declaring that it looked gross, and being called a fag! But, some time after I stopped paying much attention to porn, the vagina became idealized like every other female body part, so having the perfect vagina was added to the list.

And what about the later part dealing with young Muslim women seeking "hymenoplasty" operations, to restore their hymen so they can pass a virginity test, and not be subject to disgrace or retribution for losing their virginity! It's a different side of the coin; but it follows along the theme of young women going to extraordinary lengths to try to make themselves more appealing or acceptable to men. Her question asking 'if English girls are more liberated, when they are having their labia's trimmed, than the Muslim girls accepting arranged marriages', shows how shallow that liberation actually is in a society where the consumer becomes the product.

[recovering conservative]

LarsMac;1461301 wrote: Isn't this just another form of FGM?


I would say so! I never even heard of such a thing until very recently. It's like that old saying: "when you point your finger, you got three fingers pointing back at yourself."

[gmc]

The FMG of the original post consits of holding down a pubescent female and removing her genitals sometimes with anaesthetic most times without - pain being part of a woman's lot. The girl is usually unaware of what is about to happen and it may be carried out by female relatives who had it done to them as children with much singing and dancing to cover up the screams.

Anyone that defends it as a cultural practice or in any way whatsoever is imo an idiot right up there with those who justify slavery because it was in the bible or who think no woman should not be be allowed contraceptives because after all it's god's will if you get pregnant. Just think about the hatred that is behind such an act I find it frankly unbelieveable that anyone thinks it's OK inany cirumstances. It is not comparable with male circumcision although I suspect if it involved remouing the penis and testicles most male might object. After FGM a woman can still be used for sex and bear children just get no pleasure in it so far as the religious are concerned that is all that they are for anyway. Eve's curse given an exdtra twist by sadistic holy mysoginists. It's sadistic and twisted.

[High Threshold]

recovering conservative;1461319 wrote: That's good, but why didn't you tell me anything about the movie before?


I did. The misconception that woman strive after a specific look for the benefit of men is precisely why I wanted you to see the film. That's the message. I told you beforehand …..

“Note it's stated a couple of times in the film that these women who claim it's to be more attractive for their men might find that men are not in agreement at all.”

recovering conservative;1461319 wrote: And what about the later part dealing with young Muslim women seeking ….. to restore their hymen so they can pass a virginity test …... it follows along the theme of young women going to extraordinary lengths to try to make themselves more appealing or acceptable to men.


No it does not. Moslem women who are NOT virgins (at the time of marriage) is grounds for default annulment, pure and simple. Nothing to do with being appealing. In fact, it is forbidden by Islamic law for a Moslem man to see his wife nude anyway, so the appearance of her vagina is irrelevant.

[FourPart]

I find it incredible that women who have had it done to themselves would even agree to put some innocent child through the same experience.

I'm sorry, but I see such actions as being plain & simple inherently evil, along with any culture that supports or even allows it.

[High Threshold]

gmc;1461321 wrote: ...... with much singing and dancing to cover up the screams.


I am willing to go out onto any limb to say that the singing and dancing is NOT for the purpose ...... "to cover up the screams" and if you persist in that theme then you'll have to produce some compelling poof of it, if you please.

gmc;1461321 wrote: Anyone that defends it as a cultural practice or in any way whatsoever is imo an idiot right up there with those who justify slavery ....


You're prepared to name defence and justification as equivalents? Come along! You may just as well call me an "idiot", in that case, because I say "yes" the circumcision of girls in those tribes IS cultural practice. That's exactly what it IS. But according to your little rant I then (naturally) justify it? Tsk, tsk.



gmc;1461321 wrote: I find it frankly unbelieveable that anyone thinks it's OK inany cirumstances.


"In any circumstance"? Not even as a medical necessity? You don't mean that. You're not feeling very well today, I can see.

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1461324 wrote: I'm sorry, but I see such actions as being plain & simple inherently evil, along with any culture that supports or even allows it.


Along with male circumcision and the piercing of children's ears?

[recovering conservative]

High Threshold;1461322 wrote: I did. The misconception that woman strive after a specific look for the benefit of men is precisely why I wanted you to see the film. That's the message. I told you beforehand …..
How much of the movie did you actually watch? Because, most of them said they believed their vaginas were ugly because of what men had told them previously...or were still telling them today.

“Note it's stated a couple of times in the film that these women who claim it's to be more attractive for their men might find that men are not in agreement at all.”


Aside from her friends early on, the men making comments later on seemed to have strong opinions on what looks good/and what doesn't.

No it does not. Moslem women who are NOT virgins (at the time of marriage) is grounds for default annulment, pure and simple. Nothing to do with being appealing. In fact, it is forbidden by Islamic law for a Moslem man to see his wife nude anyway, so the appearance of her vagina is irrelevant.


I didn't say the hymen repair was for cosmetic reasons. My point is that they are doing it to to please others and not themselves. The conservative Muslim man wants a virgin/the liberal Englishman wants a perfect twat.

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1461324 wrote: I find it incredible that women who have had it done to themselves would even agree to put some innocent child through the same experience..


How do you feel about men who've been to war themselves yet encourage their sons to "be a man" and sign up for the next one?

[recovering conservative]

gmc;1461321 wrote: The FMG of the original post consits of holding down a pubescent female and removing her genitals sometimes with anaesthetic most times without - pain being part of a woman's lot. The girl is usually unaware of what is about to happen and it may be carried out by female relatives who had it done to them as children with much singing and dancing to cover up the screams.
Yes, but my problem with the OP is that it was based on a fake news story, when there are other real FGM stories that can be used as a reference.

Anyone that defends it as a cultural practice or in any way whatsoever is imo an idiot right up there with those who justify slavery because it was in the bible or who think no woman should not be be allowed contraceptives because after all it's god's will if you get pregnant. Just think about the hatred that is behind such an act I find it frankly unbelieveable that anyone thinks it's OK inany cirumstances. It is not comparable with male circumcision although I suspect if it involved remouing the penis and testicles most male might object. After FGM a woman can still be used for sex and bear children just get no pleasure in it so far as the religious are concerned that is all that they are for anyway. Eve's curse given an exdtra twist by sadistic holy mysoginists. It's sadistic and twisted.


I noticed on the wikipedia page that the motivation to change the term to female genital mutilation from the former - female circumcision, was to provide a better description of the procedure, and distinguish it from male circumcision...which whether for or against, doesn't come close to FGM! Along with everything else mentioned, there are no possible health benefits for FGM as there is for circumcision!

And yes....castration might provide a better comparison than circumcision, for removing the clitoris and other lady parts.

[High Threshold]

recovering conservative;1461332 wrote: Yes, but my problem with the OP is that it was based on a fake news story, when there are other real FGM stories that can be used as a reference.


Good point.



recovering conservative;1461332 wrote: I noticed on the wikipedia page that the motivation to change the term to female genital mutilation from the former - female circumcision, was to provide a better description of the procedure, and distinguish it from male circumcision...which whether for or against, doesn't come close to FGM!


So you don't see the removal of the foreskin of a child as “forced”? You don't see the removal of the foreskin as genital “mutilation”?

recovering conservative;1461332 wrote: Along with everything else mentioned, there are no possible health benefits for FGM as there is for circumcision!


In the city one may use a zipper and in the desert there is lots of sand.

recovering conservative;1461332 wrote: And yes....castration might provide a better comparison than circumcision, for removing the clitoris and other lady parts.


No comparison. Castration eliminates the possibility of fathering children - female circumcision doesn't even reduce the possibility of mothering children.

[Bruv]

High Threshold;1461313 wrote: Would it gain legitimacy if my wife were to register and reissue my posts?


Would you allow her to have an opinion?

The point you missed or side stepped was that it seems that men's preferences hold sway in both cultures.

[High Threshold]

Culture needs to be respected. There is a discussion on Western influence on the Middle East, how national borders were drawn by colonialists without regard to cultural and ethnic differences, and the general agreement is that such a lack of acknowledgement was (and is) improper.

I met a Canadian in Lao Bao some years ago. We travelled through to Savannakhet together and enjoyed one another's company so well that we decided to stick together into Thailand for several days. It was in Thailand where we met two Japanese girls who took our fancy, and their interest in us was likewise. We went to a café, all 4 of us, to get better acquainted. The Japanese have a cultural thing that women serve the men “at the table” so these two started to pour us our tea, asking how many sugar bits we took, and stir it in for us. This upset my Canadian friend who refused to allow it. He snatched his cup away from them and insisted he wouldn't allow them “to degrade themselves”. I discretely informed him that that is the way Japanese do things and it's harmless if that's the way these two girls thought would please us. Never mind. He took on a foul air, started in lecturing (to them!) on how women shouldn't lower themselves, yada, yada, yada. So he offended them, they went back to their hotel alone …... and we didn't get lucky that day - or any other day.

The point is that culture is a heavy item in some ethnic circles and if you feel that female circumcision is wrong then you have to approach the subject cautiously and find a way eradicate it in a long, time-consuming process, often by replacing it with something else. Marching in to proclaim “it's wrong” will never produce the results you're after, and you might even start another war.

[High Threshold]

Bruv;1461334 wrote: Would you allow her to have an opinion?


I feel personally offended that you felt it necessary to ask me that question.

[Bruv]

High Threshold;1461337 wrote: I feel personally offended that you felt it necessary to ask me that question.


It was you that asked......"Would it gain legitimacy if my wife were to register and reissue my posts"

Reissue your opinions? Rather than discuss the issue on her own terms?

[High Threshold]

So your question was serious.

[Bruv]

Bruv;1461294 wrote: Funny how this thread has swung around from being about an anti Islamist rumour concerning FGM issued by an allegedly male dominated religion, into a male dominated thread about the aesthetics of female genitalia.


High Threshold;1461313 wrote: Would it gain legitimacy if my wife were to register and reissue my posts?


Bruv;1461334 wrote: Would you allow her to have an opinion?

The point you missed or side stepped was that it seems that men's preferences hold sway in both cultures.


High Threshold;1461337 wrote: I feel personally offended that you felt it necessary to ask me that question.


Bruv;1461339 wrote: It was you that asked......"Would it gain legitimacy if my wife were to register and reissue my posts"

Reissue your opinions? Rather than discuss the issue on her own terms?


High Threshold;1461341 wrote: So your question was serious.


The original observation was very serious, and amazingly possibly the most liberal among us has gone all conservative.

[gmc]

posted by high threshold

I am willing to go out onto any limb to say that the singing and dancing is NOT for the purpose ...... "to cover up the screams" and if you persist in that theme then you'll have to produce some compelling poof of it, if you please.




Well no the dancing and singing is to keep up the pretence that this is a celebration of the girl's move to womanhood and keep the party atmosphere and false sense of scurity up until the last minute maybe the women believe it is or having been victims themselves are eager to see others suffer whatever the reason the effect is to cover up the screams.



You're prepared to name defence and justification as equivalents? Come along! You may just as well call me an "idiot", in that case, because I say "yes" the circumcision of girls in those tribes IS cultural practice. That's exactly what it IS. But according to your little rant I then (naturally) justify it? Tsk, tsk.


English is not your first language is it so maybe you don;t realise the implications of what you are saying.



jus·ti·fi·ca·tion

[juhs-tuh-fi-key-shuhn] Show IPA

noun

1.

a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends:[


When it comes to any action you undertake then you justify or defend that action and your right to take it.

If you defend an action on cultural grounds then you are also arguing it was a just action. Segregation in the us and apartheid in south africa were cultural practices if you defend that on cultural grounds the you are also stating that it is justified because it is a cultural practice. Anyone who defends the mutilation of helpless girls is at best an idiot who hasn't thought it through. If you find that offensive then I apologise but culturally I am allowed to call someone and idiot or a pillock in the course of a duiscussion, in my culture it is merely an expression of extreme disagreement.

"In any circumstance"? Not even as a medical necessity? You don't mean that. You're not feeling very well today, I can see.


OK you intrique me. What medical conditions require the removal of female genitalia?

[High Threshold]

Bruv;1461343 wrote: The original observation was very serious, and amazingly possibly the most liberal among us has gone all conservative.


Sorry. I'm not with you on this one. You apparently have an overview that I'm incapable of understanding. But no harm done as far as I can see.

[High Threshold]

gmc;1461345 wrote: Well no the dancing and singing is to keep up the pretence that this is a celebration of the girl's move to womanhood …..


“Pretence”? You really are taking great liberties now. The ceremony IS A CELEBRATION OF THE GIRL'S MOVE TO WOMANHOOD. Whether you think so or not is irrelevant.

gmc;1461345 wrote: …. whatever the reason the effect is to cover up the screams.


So employing “effect” (this time) means that you will or won't agree that dancing and singing might not be specifically orchestrated with a purpose to muffling the girl's anguish?



gmc;1461345 wrote: When it comes to any action you undertake then you justify or defend that action and your right to take it. If you defend an action on cultural grounds then you are also arguing it was a just action.


I do not agree. I am defending it as a legitimate cultural event - “as a cultural practice” you said - (and even a legitimate celebration, now that you've just tossed that into the ring) but I am not justifying it as a worthy practice, in that I do not encourage it or find it admirable.

gmc;1461345 wrote: Segregation in the us and apartheid in south africa were cultural practices if you defend that on cultural grounds the you are also stating that it is justified because it is a cultural practice. Anyone who defends the mutilation of helpless girls is at best an idiot who hasn't thought it through. If you find that offensive then I apologise but culturally I am allowed to call someone and idiot or a pillock in the course of a duiscussion, in my culture it is merely an expression of extreme disagreement


Again, I do not agree. I have lived in Rhodesia and consequently have spent much time in the RSA during Apartheid. I found the law of racially-oriented practices and exclusions abhorrent BUT I can, none-the-less, sort out the odd positive detail of it without justifying the whole entity called “Apartheid”.



The Bottom Line: Rather than pick your post apart into minuscule bones of contention, I'll simply say that you are crediting me with words and convictions that I have neither expressed nor believe in. It is not necessary to agree with any notion in order to understand it and argue against misconceptions of it. You seem not to agree with that.

gmc;1461345 wrote: OK you intrique me. What medical conditions require the removal of female genitalia?


Cancer. Will that do?

[recovering conservative]

High Threshold;1461333 wrote: Good point.

So you don't see the removal of the foreskin of a child as “forced”? You don't see the removal of the foreskin as genital “mutilation”?
Children don't have consent on issues that affect their lives. Where and what sort of education they have is up to their parents; Richard Dawkins tried to present a case that parents shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate their children in their religion, using the same arguments about children being denied consent.

Unless I see a clear case that circumcision damages boys and does not have positive benefits, I would include it in the category of things that fall within the range of decisions that responsible parents make on behalf of their children.





No comparison. Castration eliminates the possibility of fathering children - female circumcision doesn't even reduce the possibility of mothering children.
On that count, you're right; but the purpose was for FGM was mostly to take away the woman's sexual arousal/ not to make her infertile. Castration does both.

It's interesting that there were two totally opposite theories of female sexuality in the patriarchal west and the middle east.

In the west, right up through Victorian era times...and maybe even into the present day, going by some of the absurd theorizing of evolutionary psychologists.... females have little interest in sex, or much less interest in sex than men do So, they are motivated by material benefits in exchange for sex. So, in Victorian times, women who did have strong sexual desires were 'suffering' from nymphomania, and there were even a few cases in England and in Germany where doctors performed clitorectomies on girls and young women who were "not of sound mind," who were continually masturbating. So, if the Victorian way of thinking carried on as the common wisdom, it's easily possible that there would be some FGM operations carried out to "cure" the girls who were sexual.

Outside of Europe, the general thinking was that women had stronger sexual desires than men, so women are always suspect. So, we have the fanaticism about virginity and keeping women shrouded and away from all situations where they can have contact with other men...for fear that they might start screwing the first guy who comes along while her husband isn't home.

Something tells me that in both the west and the east, these ideas were circulated among men who never actually talked to women to find out what they thought and felt about these issues.

[recovering conservative]

High Threshold;1461335 wrote: Culture needs to be respected. There is a discussion on Western influence on the Middle East, how national borders were drawn by colonialists without regard to cultural and ethnic differences, and the general agreement is that such a lack of acknowledgement was (and is) improper.

I met a Canadian in Lao Bao some years ago. We travelled through to Savannakhet together and enjoyed one another's company so well that we decided to stick together into Thailand for several days. It was in Thailand where we met two Japanese girls who took our fancy, and their interest in us was likewise. We went to a café, all 4 of us, to get better acquainted. The Japanese have a cultural thing that women serve the men “at the table” so these two started to pour us our tea, asking how many sugar bits we took, and stir it in for us. This upset my Canadian friend who refused to allow it. He snatched his cup away from them and insisted he wouldn't allow them “to degrade themselves”. I discretely informed him that that is the way Japanese do things and it's harmless if that's the way these two girls thought would please us. Never mind. He took on a foul air, started in lecturing (to them!) on how women shouldn't lower themselves, yada, yada, yada. So he offended them, they went back to their hotel alone …... and we didn't get lucky that day - or any other day.

The point is that culture is a heavy item in some ethnic circles and if you feel that female circumcision is wrong then you have to approach the subject cautiously and find a way eradicate it in a long, time-consuming process, often by replacing it with something else. Marching in to proclaim “it's wrong” will never produce the results you're after, and you might even start another war.


In the west today, I'm not sure if we even have a real sense of culture and tradition anymore! Capitalism has moved into virtually all aspects of everyday life, and every thing we do is subject to some marketing opportunity for some potential vendor.

What we had as culture, went through a social upheaval from the 60's onward. Some of the changes were motivated by sheer economics, as populations became urbanized, and a continual glut of new consumer products and services, along with the introduction of Television, completely ended the notion of the stay-at-home mom....everybody had to be part of the workforce to keep up with an actual decline in wages vs. actual cost of living.

This sort of dynamic has also affected the east and the rest of the world, as urbanization and TV and personal hand-held devices have turned even the poorest people into consumers. I'm not sure if that "Japanese thing" still applies today....I know they have tried to pick and choose what they take from American culture and modernism, but they have had feminist uprisings and movements that have coincided with each wave of feminism in the west. The primary form of protest against these sorts of exploitative traditions have come more quietly than in the west, but likely with greater social force than anything western feminists have done: in short, many Japanese social theorists believe that the sharp drop in marriage and having children has been the Japanese woman's way of protesting against their oppression. Rather than bang on doors and march in the streets, they simply delay marriage into their late 20's and 30's, and more and more decide to remain single for life, because very little reforms have been made at the personal family level that are similar to the west: such as it has become accepted that married men take a more active role in household chores and taking care of the children. It's still not an equal role, but it has been better than the typical Japanese man, who is still functioning under the cultural assumption that his wife should do ALL of the work in the home, even if she works as long or longer hours as he does.

[Chloe_88]

recovering conservative;1461354 wrote: Children don't have consent on issues that affect their lives. Where and what sort of education they have is up to their parents; Richard Dawkins tried to present a case that parents shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate their children in their religion, using the same arguments about children being denied consent.


IMO: I'm sorry but I can't agree with you. I was aloud to chose if I believed in God or not. I chose not to.

I believe the same about circumcision. Some kids, when they grow up hate the fact that parents have made such a decision about their bodyparts. Lets face it, circumcision is not a life or death situation, let kids decide when they are 18. Unless the circumcision has to be done because of a true medical situation (tight foreskin for example).

On a very personal point: I prefer an uncircumcised man. I could tell you why, but that might be too much information.

[gmc]

posted by high threshold

“Pretence”? You really are taking great liberties now. The ceremony IS A CELEBRATION OF THE GIRL'S MOVE TO WOMANHOOD. Whether you think so or not is irrelevant.


Some celebration. Try looking at what the victims have to say about it and the sufering it causes in later life and at childbirth. That the perpetrators see it as a rite of passage does not make it any less reprehensible. In most normal rites of passage they do not have to drug or hold the victim down.

I do not agree. I am defending it as a legitimate cultural event - “as a cultural practice” you said - (and even a legitimate celebration, now that you've just tossed that into the ring) but I am not justifying it as a worthy practice, in that I do not encourage it or find it admirable.




You are defending it as a cultural practice that should not be interfered with that is the same as justifying it as a morally acceptable act. You defend the indefensible.

Anti semitism was also engrained as part of christian culture in europe, misguided perhaps to us nowadays but nevertheless a legitimate cultural belief shared by many even today and up until the 1960'sactively endorsed by the catholic church. Do you justify the actions of hitler against the jews as enthusiasm for his faith and culture carried to extremes? The same argument you use applies to hitler and those who carried out the actual act. You may offer cultural imperatives as an explanation and I would agree with you but to defend the actions and on the grounds that it's part of their belief system and they have the right to impose it on others is reprehensible. You don't have to agree with me and I certainly don't gree with you.

[High Threshold]

Chloe_88;1461357 wrote:

On a very personal point: I prefer an uncircumcised man.


I see.

Chloe_88;1461357 wrote: I could tell you why, but that might be too much information.


It most definitely would, yes.

Personally, I'd love my wife even if she had her arms and legs amputated ...... but I prefer her body fully intact.

[High Threshold]

gmc;1461365 wrote: In most normal rites of passage they do not have to drug or hold the victim down.


Really? I guess you think that the Jewish and Moslem Genital Mutilation of All Males is enjoyed by happy-faced boys who find it such a pleasurable event that they're straining at the leash in anticipation of witnessing the next one. Girls too offer up their ears for piercing as soon as they plop onto the sheets on "day one" and are forcibly restrained by their mothers to wait for "the proper moment" to do the job later on in the day. Then of course there is the matter of giving birth. What a joy that must be! :yh_star:yh_star:yh_star



gmc;1461365 wrote: You are defending it as a cultural practice that should not be interfered with that is the same as justifying it as a morally acceptable act.


Golly! That's good to know! :yh_devil:yh_devil:yh_devilI'm deeply indebted to your astute observation of my most genuine and internal thoughts! All of these years I've only been fooling myself!

[Chloe_88]

High Threshold;1461370 wrote: I see.



It most definitely would, yes.

Personally, I'd love my wife even if she had her arms and legs amputated ...... but I prefer her body fully intact.


It would wouldn't it :wah:

maybe an extreme comparison but I see what you mean...

[recovering conservative]

Chloe_88;1461357 wrote: IMO: I'm sorry but I can't agree with you. I was aloud to chose if I believed in God or not. I chose not to.
And I left home at a young age because I wasn't allowed freedom of choice on religion. But, I still wouldn't accept the new secular ideology that parents somehow leave a void for their children to fill, depending on how important they feel it is to address metaphysical issues on the nature of consciousness and identity, and what the meaning and purpose of this world is...if there is any grand purpose that makes sense to us! The simple fact is that responsible parents are going to have desires to teach their children what they feel is important in life; and that may mean teaching a naturalistic approach to reality, or it may mean accepting the family tradition....because that's what we were taught...and so on back for as many generations as anyone cares to look back on. Although in the west, the combination of material comfort and frequent social change and social upheaval have shattered traditional religions. In the U.S. today for example, there is a constant rise and fall of new evangelical churches, as they rise in popularity and attract new members, and then lose them in the religion marketplace to newer evangelical movements that are able to make a better appeal for followers.

All that aside, it's important to keep in mind that today's new atheists and secular humanists are influencing their children's beliefs also. If a Dawkins' ban on religious education of children actually did become policy, it would be obviously biased in favour of the new secular humanist religion....which mostly follows a faith-based belief in future progress provided by new technologies...in spite of the harm most new technologies have enabled so far! In the long run, the religion of progress is the one that is leading us towards extinction/ not creationism or flat earthers etc.

I believe the same about circumcision. Some kids, when they grow up hate the fact that parents have made such a decision about their bodyparts. Lets face it, circumcision is not a life or death situation, let kids decide when they are 18. Unless the circumcision has to be done because of a true medical situation (tight foreskin for example).
*it should be noted that circumcisions performed on newborns in a hospital are done with local anesthetic; so that should lessen the concerns about causing pain to the newborn.

I haven't had either of my two sons come at me asking why we decided to have them circumcised.....yet, but if there is a judgment that the benefits of circumcision outweigh negative effects, then it should be done early in life when it's safest, and when it can prevent any health problems that might arise in an uncircumcised male. Again, parents have lots of time to make lots of mistakes while they are raising children; it is impossible to be perfect, but we always hope we've done more good than harm in the long run. I feel my biggest mistake was letting my kids watch too much TV when they were young...if I had a chance for a do-over, that's the one I would change/ not circumcision...at least not yet.

On a very personal point: I prefer an uncircumcised man. I could tell you why, but that might be too much information.
YOu may have solved my riddle about why this is such an obsession with some men!

On the flipside, if the somewhat greater STD risk carried by uncircumcised men affected you in a personal way, would that change your preference for uncircumcised men?

[Chloe_88]

recovering conservative;1461413 wrote:

YOu may have solved my riddle about why this is such an obsession with some men!

On the flipside, if the somewhat greater STD risk carried by uncircumcised men affected you in a personal way, would that change your preference for uncircumcised men?


Thats a whole load of Sh... Let me rephrase that.... show me the scientific proof of your point please.

Here's mine:

More Circumcision Myths You May Believe: Hygiene and STDs | Psychology Today

To answer your other question: No. It's called getting yourself tested before doing the deed and using protection.

[recovering conservative]

Chloe_88;1461415 wrote: That a whol load of Sh... Let me rephrase that.... show me the scientific proof of your point please.

Here's mine:

More Circumcision Myths You May Believe: Hygiene and STDs | Psychology Today
I have a lot of respect for the opinions of Darcia Narvaez - the Moral Landscapes blogger for Psychology Today, but that doesn't mean I just take her word...or anyone else's...on a subject without considering other opinions. She has strong opinions that circumcision should be abolished, but did you notice that her myth/reality check series of back-and-forths on hygiene issues sure betrays the fact that there is a lot more work for boys and men to do to keep themselves clean and infection-free if they are uncircumcised. For example:

After it retracts on its own, it will get clean during the boy's shower or bath. Once a boy discovers this cool, new feature of his penis, he will often retract the foreskin himself during his bath or shower, and you can encourage him to rinse it off. But he should not use soap as this upsets the natural balance and is very irritating. There is nothing special that the parents need to do. Most little boys have absolutely no problem playing with their penises in the shower or anywhere else!
This sure assumes that nothing will go wrong in childhood or later on in life. We do know that people are all different, and some people do better job of taking care of personal hygiene than others. This and other wave-of-the-hand dismissals of hygiene concerns sure sounds like she is making the starting assumption that no man has bad personal hygiene...that sure sounds like a bad assumption to lead off with!

The WebMD and FamilyDoctor medical websites also note that there is conflicting evidence on the claimed benefits of circumcision, so they can be disputed and argued about, and there are some studies pointing in one direction, with others leading in a different direction. Her response on the AIDS issue is baffling:

Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.

Reality check: Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009)


So, does she just assume that it's okay in Africa/but not in America? Or what if the mode of HIV transmission changes towards heterosexual infection? It's been noted that the most common HIV virus in Africa is different than the one that has been spread throughout Europe and North America.

All this is besides the point anyway! I didn't declare myself to be the goodwill ambassador for circumcision to begin with. I wasn't even sure at the time our boys were born if it was for the good/or not. What led towards deciding to go with circumcision was the simple fact that it is much more difficult afterwards. It's a procedure that is best done early, and not left in later life. And what's most important, no matter how you slice it - circumcision pales in consideration of female genital mutilation...the actual issue of this thread...believe it or not! FGM has no upsides, only down, and even when done by doctors in Africa, is still a painful and dangerous operation....let alone when it is done by a bunch of matrons who run village life of girls and young women!

[Chloe_88]

recovering conservative;1461417 wrote: All this is besides the point anyway! I didn't declare myself to be the goodwill ambassador for circumcision to begin with. I wasn't even sure at the time our boys were born if it was for the good/or not.


I can understand that. Many things we used to do or believe in have now been proved not to be true (in general that is, not talking about circumcision ). At the time you did what you felt was best. Nobody can fault you for that.

recovering conservative;1461417 wrote:

And what's most important, no matter how you slice it - circumcision pales in consideration of female genital mutilation...the actual issue of this thread...believe it or not! FGM has no upsides, only down, and even when done by doctors in Africa, is still a painful and dangerous operation....let alone when it is done by a bunch of matrons who run village life of girls and young women!


I'm glad you said that.

[High Threshold]

Chloe_88;1461415 wrote: That a whol load of Sh... Let me rephrase that.... show me the scientific proof of your point please.




Thank you, Chloe. I would tell him myself but he's hypnotized.

[Chloe_88]

recovering conservative;1461417 wrote: the fact that there is a lot more work for boys and men to do to keep themselves clean and infection-free if they are uncircumcised.


By the way: I just think thats got to do with personal hygiene.

and if you do not wash properly, you are a dirty little ........ and will get your willy in trouble.

Men with medical issues excluded of course. (very tight foreskin etc.)

[gmc]

High Threshold

Really? I guess you think that the Jewish and Moslem Genital Mutilation of All Males is enjoyed by happy-faced boys who find it such a pleasurable event that they're straining at the leash in anticipation of witnessing the next one. Girls too offer up their ears for piercing as soon as they plop onto the sheets on "day one" and are forcibly restrained by their mothers to wait for "the proper moment" to do the job later on in the day. Then of course there is the matter of giving birth. What a joy that must be! :yh_star:yh_star:yh_star




What point are you trying to make? I would put it to you that chopping bits of your sons is not a "normal" rite of passage. For jews it's something that their god demands. Abnyone else cutting bits off a baby is child abuse. The fact that moslems get it done as teenagers does at least suggest an element of choice. As a general rule I would be against cutting bits off unless for medical reasons.

Golly! That's good to know! :yh_devil:yh_devil:yh_devilI'm deeply indebted to your astute observation of my most genuine and internal thoughts! All of these years I've only been fooling myself!




Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote.

You're prepared to name defence and justification as equivalents? Come along! You may just as well call me an "idiot", in that case, because I say "yes" the circumcision of girls in those tribes IS cultural practice. That's exactly what it IS. But according to your little rant I then (naturally) justify it? Tsk, tsk.


I do not agree. I am defending it as a legitimate cultural event - “as a cultural practice” you said - (and even a legitimate celebration, now that you've just tossed that into the ring) but I am not justifying it as a worthy practice, in that I do not encourage it or find it admirable.


In defence you offer the justification it is a cultural practice. That is a crap justification and an equally bad defence. You are still defending it as legitimate and quite frankly I don't agree with you. Human rights should not be subordinate to custom an practice nor should religious belief be used as a justification for atrocities which is exactly what you are defending. Just accept that I don't agree with you.

As to the little matter of giving birth doctors used to argue that using painkillers during childbirth was against nature and god. ( see curse of eve etc etc) Luckily we live in more rational times and countries.

[FourPart]

recovering conservative;1461413 wrote: *it should be noted that circumcisions performed on newborns in a hospital are done with local anesthetic; so that should lessen the concerns about causing pain to the newborn.


You really believe that?

Take a look - it's not a pretty site.

What the circumcisers don't want you to see. | END ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION

[High Threshold]

gmc. Your argument is becoming increasingly pear-shaped.

gmc;1461428 wrote: I would put it to you that chopping bits of your sons is not a "normal" rite of passage.


I wonder what you think a “rite” means? Do you know? I can't believe that you do. No, I'm certain of it. BTW: What is normal has nothing to do with it. “Rites” have carte blanche in such matters.

gmc;1461428 wrote: For jews it's something that their god demands. Abnyone else cutting bits off a baby is child abuse.


I'm so relieved that you know what “God” demands of His people. Otherwise you'd be parading up and down the High Street demanding even the “rite” of Male Genital Mutilation be abolished! It's a pity you don't have the same depth of one-to-one communication with the Christian, Moslem, and African-traditional Gods. If you did you might be proclaiming Defense and Justification for the Pope's striped under-wear ........ and female circumcision too. :wah:

gmc;1461428 wrote: Maybe you should go back and read what you wrote.


I have already laid out the difference between “defence” (as far the definition of the subject) and “justification” but you fail to consider the significance and carry on as though oblivious …..

gmc;1461428 wrote: In defence you offer the justification it is a cultural practice.


And if the proper definition weren't good enough for you I have even informed you straight up my personal feelings on the subject …. all to no avail. Sigh. In essence, you are saying, “You're not only wrong but you are lying about your own thoughts.” That is not what I call a discussion or even a debate. You disappoint me, mate.

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1461432 wrote: You really believe that?


I think the problem here is that RC doesn't understand what the term "local anesthetic" means.

[FourPart]

High Threshold;1461437 wrote: I think the problem here is that RC doesn't understand what the term "local anesthetic" means.
I had to undergo the op a couple of years ago, due to a much earlier injury, and the local anaesthetic itself was painful enough.

Obviously the whole region is probably the most sensitive part of the body, so any physical invasion is torturous. A simple needle filled with local anaesthetic is agony on its own. The idea of having to have the same procedure without it is abhorrent and, as the video shows, a local anaesthetic is NOT always used on infants - if ever. On adults, yes. They can't speak out for themselves. A baby has no choice but to suffer the pain forced upon him.

[gmc]

Poted by high threshold

I wonder what you think a “rite” means? Do you know? I can't believe that you do. No, I'm certain of it. BTW: What is normal has nothing to do with it. “Rites” have carte blanche in such matters.


OK I'll' repeat myself one more time.

In defence you offer the justification it is a cultural practice. That is a crap justification and an equally bad defence. You are still defending it as legitimate and quite frankly I don't agree with you. Human rights should not be subordinate to custom and practice (or indeed rites of passage whether religious in origin or not) nor should religious belief be used as a justification for atrocities which is exactly what you are defending. Just accept that I don't agree with you.




I'm so relieved that you know what “God” demands of His people. Otherwise you'd be parading up and down the High Street demanding even the “rite” of Male Genital Mutilation be abolished! It's a pity you don't have the same depth of one-to-one communication with the Christian, Moslem, and African-traditional Gods. If you did you might be proclaiming Defense and Justification for the Pope's striped under-wear ........ and female circumcision too. :wah:




As secularist I don't really care what religious practices people follow as they leave everybody else alone. The popes striped underwaear is a new one to me and irrelevant but since you bing it up his actions in preaching against birth control and rights for women in third world countries contributes greatly to the misery many suffer as a consequence

I have already laid out the difference between “defence” (as far the definition of the subject) and “justification” but you fail to consider the significance and carry on as though oblivious …..


and I've already pointed out that defnce and justification are synonymous depending on the context.

defence synonym | English synonyms dictionary | Reverso



defence

1 armament, cover, deterrence, guard, immunity, protection, resistance, safeguard, security, shelter

2 barricade, bastion, buckler, bulwark, buttress, fastness, fortification, rampart, shield

3 [QUOTE]apologia, apology, argument, excuse, exoneration, explanation, extenuation, justification, plea, vindication
4 (Law) alibi, case, declaration, denial, plea, pleading, rebuttal, testimony




And if the proper definition weren't good enough for you I have even informed you straight up my personal feelings on the subject …. all to no avail. Sigh. In essence, you are saying, “You're not only wrong but you are lying about your own thoughts.” That is not what I call a discussion or even a debate. You disappoint me, mate.




You didn't offer a proper definition - Semantics are not your strong point. You are also adopting the classic tactic when someone can't think of a rebuttal of pretending I am attacking you personally. I am glad you don't approve of the practice I do object to your trying to defend and justify it on any grounds whatsoever.

Male circumcision and female genital mutilation are both practices stemming from religious belief. Those who argue the two are similar and merely cultural practices that should be respected conflate the two in order to change the discussion away from the real issue and make an atrocity done to women sound like somthing very minor.

Those who justify or defend any kind of practice on religious or cultural grounds essentially are arguing the point that the rights of the individual are subordinate of religious doctrine and cultural practice. I don't agree with that and will disagree with anyone that presnts that kind of case or in any form.

[High Threshold]

gmc;1461443 wrote: OK I'll' repeat myself one more time.


Please do.





gmc;1461443 wrote: As secularist I don't really care what religious practices people follow as they leave everybody else alone.


Yet here you are.



gmc;1461443 wrote: and I've already pointed out that defnce and justification are synonymous


Lovely.







gmc;1461443 wrote: You didn't offer a proper definition


That's alright. I won't hold it against you.

[High Threshold]

FourPart;1461438 wrote: I had to undergo the op a couple of years ago ....... the local anaesthetic itself was painful enough.


Don't I know it!



FourPart;1461438 wrote: Obviously the whole region is probably the most sensitive part of the body


As is ours too.

FourPart;1461438 wrote: so any physical invasion is torturous.


I have had the displeasure once or twice.



FourPart;1461438 wrote: A simple needle filled with local anaesthetic is agony on its own.


Please! Don't talk about it!



FourPart;1461438 wrote: as the video shows, a local anaesthetic is NOT always used on infants




I haven't looked at it. I'll take your word for it. I saw the Penn & Teller video …. it's enough. Uuuuugh!