Ban all genital mutilation of children

[Hermit]

The thing with 'obvious morally objectionable things' is that views differ as to what is morally objectionable, thus bringing the obviousness of the objection into moral dispute.

However, in this case, the damage to the female infant is much more serious, if for only the reason that it typically disallows orgasm (as well as being much more damaging to the genital tissues overall). This is an objective assessment, rather than a moral judgement.

Circumcision does not have that effect, as I can personally attest...

POIN... No. Wait. A photo of that may cause more trauma than your terminator eye.

In case anyone is around who has not seen it,

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[JimC]

[mistermack]

Will the person who argued that male circumcision is as severe as female please stand up?
I don't remember saying it, or reading it.

The principle is the same, that's all. They are both unnecessary genital mutilation. One is worse than the other, but both should be banned.

Imagine a world where it had never been done. And some new religion started advocating it and ritually doing it.
They would be immediately locked up.

People are so fucking illogical, when it's religious or cultural. Ooooh, it must be ok then, it's "tradition". Must be respected.

[JimC]

So, what's your realistic expectation on when the majority of Western societies ban circumcision?

I'm not arguing either way, I'm assessing the realpolitik...

[Scot Dutchy]

Males can live perfectly well after circumcision. Female mutilation is a life long sentence to pain and infection with very painful copulation.
It is totally disgusting. Here girls are checked when they have been on a long holiday to certain parents countries but few actually return.

[rachelbean]

They are both unnecessary genital mutilation. One is worse than the other, but both should be banned.

This. It's weird that this is even still a discussion.

[Animavore]

The simple golden rule should easily apply. If you wouldn't like it done to you why should you do it on someone else. I'd certainly hate to wake up from a peaceful sleep strapped to a bed, helpless, unable to do anything about it, while someone slices off my foreskin!

It's a pretty horrific thought.

Some people may have different tastes. I can't imagine many though.

[mistermack]

So, what's your realistic expectation on when the majority of Western societies ban circumcision?

I'm not arguing either way, I'm assessing the realpolitik...

When people are so fucking stupid, when it comes to religion or "culture", who can tell?
They don't even take the people to court for the female mutilation.

If the rabbi just sucked the baby's dick, he would be locked up. Even though it didn't hurt or mutilate it for life.
But if he actually cuts the living skin off the end, he doesn't even get a caution.

Put the fuckers on the sex offenders register. Same with the muslims.

[Animavore]

Will the person who argued that male circumcision is as severe as female please stand up?
I don't remember saying it, or reading it.

The principle is the same, that's all. They are both unnecessary genital mutilation. One is worse than the other, but both should be banned.

Imagine a world where it had never been done. And some new religion started advocating it and ritually doing it.
They would be immediately locked up.

People are so fucking illogical, when it's religious or cultural. Ooooh, it must be ok then, it's "tradition". Must be respected.

I'm from as close a world where it's never been done. It's just not really a thing here. I still remember the first time I heard of circumcision quite clearly. I was around 16. I was like, they do WHAT?! What the fuck is wrong with them?!

That's why I find arguments for amusing. They're trying to argue I'd be better off having a piece of me cut off. They don't realise how ridiculous it sounds because they've had it and they're alright, but I'm sure they'd feel aghast if you argued they cut off some piece of them.

There's all types of body mods out there that arguably aren't impactful like having your tongue cut to make it forked, most people would be outraged if someone did that to a baby. But circumcision is different because reasons.

[Forty Two]

Glad you noticed, albeit belatedly. While I agree that a cliterectomy is worse than circumcision, which in turn is worse than puncturing earlobes, I would not use haircuts and nail clipping as justification that the wishes of parents are unobjectionable in regard to lopping off foreskin or making holes in earlobes.

I did not use it as a justification of the practice. I used it as examples of other things kids don't "want" to illustrate the fact that what happens to children is not generally determined by what they explicitly want.

The justification for making holes in earlobes is that it is a cultural custom, and as a procedure is very minor in terms of its effect on the individual. It's not permanent disfigurement or "mutilation." Others may not like it, and nobody is saying they need to.

With circumcision, the justification are generally speaking those I linked to in my link to the Mayo Clinic's website, and also, in addition to those, not just those on the Mayo Clinic's site, but as additional justification, people cite to cultural and religious issues. And, overall, the procedure, in general, is not detrimental.

Personally, when we were having kids, the subject came up about whether we would do it, if the child was a boy. I was initially on the side of "no." My wife has always been on the side of "yes." I was on the side of no, because I viewed it, on balance, as not particularly necessary, and that it's benefits were not shown to me to be all that substantial. So, I have some uncertainty, but I lean "no."

What I do not have is this wild reaction to it as if it's a massive crime against humanity, and equal to mutilation, mayhem, and violent assaults. I think referring to it as stabbing, hacking, and other such terminology is not appropriate usage.

[Forty Two]

Glad you noticed, albeit belatedly. .[/quote]

Oh, and fuck off with this shit. I did not notice it "belatedly." It's been part and parcel of my argument here from the beginning. I made the initial distinction, based on gradation differences, between female and male circumcision procedures. I was castigated for making that distinction, and it was others who were refusing to note the differences in degree. I was castigated, also, for not thinking ear piercing a great crime which roughly equals "mutilations" and "stabbings." So, it's not me that fails to notice degrees of things.

[Forty Two]

@Brian Peacock - This was the post you responded to "Well, sure, that too. And, parents recognize the prevalence of kids wanting earrings as they get older, and it's much easier to do it when the child is an infant than when they are 5 or even 10." And, that was referring to earrings.

You then responded by asking what infant wants to be circumcised, and I think responded with the above. What's the problem?

No infant "wants" to be circumcised. Who said they did? Why is that relevant?

But parents recognise that children commonly want earrings as they get older so parents get their kid's ears pierced when they're an infant because it's easier, apparently. Are you happy with parents assuming the future desires of their children and acting on that assumption to mark, deform, or mutilate their children's bodies permanently, and does this argument also apply to circumcision - "When he's older Little Johnny will want us to have had him circumcised while he was an infant" ?

Am I "happy" with parents assuming the future desires of their children? Sure, sometimes, depending on the thing at issue. With an issue of ear piercing, I have no issue with it, because worst case scenario if the kid gets older and doesn't want the earrings, then they can be taken out, the hole will close, and there will be no issue.

I do not, however, agree that ear-piercing deforms or mutilates anyone's body, and I don't believe it's much of a "mark" since it goes away, if you take the earring out.

With respect to circumcision, too, I think that the downsides of getting it are few and far between, and there are some rational upsides, and there is nobody there to make the decision but the parents, so, better parents than the state, in my view. So, it's a process that's more serious than an earring, but still not mutilation or deformation, that kind of thing.

As for what makes me "happy" -- that's not really the question, anyway. Lots of things other people do may not be what I'd be happy with. I'm generally not one, however, to impose my views on others just because I'm not happy with their choices. And, I am not of the view that the State is a better parent than parents, even with all the faults of parents which are plenty. So, I'm not going to support having parenting decisions handed over to the State, and I don't equate every procedure with abuse.

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

Likewise, cutting off a bit of foreskin is very different than cutting off a clitoris. So, if we are discussing material differences, there is one right there.

I agree that there is a significant difference, enough so that society is totally justified in banning female genital mutilation, and that circumcision be left up to parents to decide. Having said that, the zeitgeist on that issue is moving, and it is less common than it was, possibly for good reason.

Indeed. As I noted, I was in the "no" camp with our kids. We didn't have a boy, so it wasn't an issue, but before we knew the sex, we talked about it a bit. I was "no" wife was yes.

Incidentally, I was also in the "no" camp on earrings. My wife was in the "yes" camp. I lost that battle, and it's a battle I'm comfortable having lost. The girls love their earrings. It's interesting, the places that pierce kids' ears will pierce babies - like 6 weeks or so on up to about a year, but there is a cut-off where they say it's too late, and they will then have to wait a few years to get them. The key issue is the ability to keep the kids still. Obviously, you don't want the kid jerking around while you're trying to hit an exact spot. When the kid is a couple of months old, you take them in, they have no idea what's going on, they feel a pinch on their ear, and literally - I'm telling you literally - it's over in less than 10 seconds. The baby reacts to the pinch, and then a few seconds later is cheery and happy. There is no "recovery" necessary. There is no ill-effect. No pain-killers are necessary. Nothing.

[Forty Two]

Because I had no idea it was common in those countries. I had no idea it was common anywhere until you mentioned it. Can you cut it, for once, with your butthurt about criticisms of the US?

LOL, it's not "criticisms of the US" that's the problem. It's the bullshit ignorant nonsense that some, like you, constantly puke up in these threads in furtherance of silly notions that you have about what life is like in the United States.

I.e. criticisms of the US.

No, i.e., idiocies you imagine.

And, I doubt ear piercing of children is less prevalent in Oz,

It's the bullshit ignorant nonsense that some, like you, constantly puke up in these threads in furtherance of silly notions that you have about what life is like in Australia.

Not correct, as I had no trouble finding infant ear piercing in Australia. Took me all of a few seconds.

given the ease with which I found many, many locations advertising such services in Australia. In Australia, apparently, it's common enough to have salons offering to pierce baby's ears at "at least 6 weeks" and they have multiple locations all over your country. https://www.essentialbeauty.com.au/ It took about ten seconds for me to find many, many locations that do this. Apparently, there's enough of a market in Oz to justify a business line for this national company in Oz. I suspect Oz is not that much different than the US, with various viewpoints on the topic. So stuff it.

You are clueless, as usual. I would have seen probably a total of 5 babies (and only a handful more under 8's) with their ears pierced in Australia in my life. And for all I know, they were Americans here on holiday. To see a baby with it's ears pierced is an incredibly rare sight here in Australia. There may be migrant communities where it is more common (I'm thinking Indian, perhaps), hence the need for those salons.

That must be why there are salons offering the service. Expatriate Americans. Businesses generally offer services and dedicate pages of their websites to a procedure that vanishingly few people in a given region want.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/piercing-baby-ears/ "All the baby girls in my Italian family had their ears pierced at that age." (says an Australian mother from Sydney, of apparently Italian heritage). Those crazy Italians and their barbaric culture, mutilating their baby's ears! Shocking! Call the police! Italian culture is so barbaric. Ear piercing must be an "Italian thing" that's so bizarre to the "civilized world." Here's a thread where Australian parents are discussing the issue - http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/aust ... -girl.html (a good number posting here pierced, and some were saying they did not want to do it) and here is another Australian website discussing the practice. http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/baby/li ... 0416-36r2g (noting, also the Spanish and Brazilian fondness for the practice, etc., but it's probably some peculiar American procedure...)

We have the same bullshit from people who are outraged by ear piercing here in the States too, so it's not just folks in the civilized world that are railing against the barbaric practice of stabbing and mutilating a baby's ears in an effort to permanently disfigure them for no reason other than the cruel and sadistic pleasure of their parents. The objections, though, are the same over-the-top moralizing that some folks here are going on with.

[pErvinalia]

Glad you noticed, albeit belatedly. While I agree that a cliterectomy is worse than circumcision, which in turn is worse than puncturing earlobes, I would not use haircuts and nail clipping as justification that the wishes of parents are unobjectionable in regard to lopping off foreskin or making holes in earlobes.

I did not use it as a justification of the practice. I used it as examples of other things kids don't "want" to illustrate the fact that what happens to children is not generally determined by what they explicitly want.

The justification for making holes in earlobes is that it is a cultural custom, and as a procedure is very minor in terms of its effect on the individual. It's not permanent disfigurement or "mutilation." Others may not like it, and nobody is saying they need to.

With circumcision, the justification are generally speaking those I linked to in my link to the Mayo Clinic's website, and also, in addition to those, not just those on the Mayo Clinic's site, but as additional justification, people cite to cultural and religious issues. And, overall, the procedure, in general, is not detrimental.

I'm interested to know whether, if given the choice, you'd choose to be circumcised or not? If you were magically born again and where aware of all this stuff, would you want to be circumcised again or go the slug-life?