Strange thing this isn't it? FGM (female genital mutilation) is getting massive news but MGM (male genital mutilation, AKA circumcision) is still performed by the NHS. Personally I think both practises are obhorrent but why is this recent outrage re FGM but MGM is widely accepted?
I know, one of my best mates is American, had it done himself and also did it to his son :Banhappy: only because of of local tradition. But why recent outrage of FGM when both practices have been join on for millenia?
FGM is gross assault on a usually young girl and is a "tradition" instigated by a male dominated society to prevent women from enjoying sexual intercourse. Although less violent but also very dibilitating is the practice of foot binding to ensure that the girl's feet look sexually attractive although unable to walk in later life. Thankfully it has been banded in Japan for some years but it is allledged that the "tradition" hasn't died out.
Yes, why would anyone be outraged at adults carrying out irreversible mutilations on the sexual organs of children? Touching, or just looking at, childrens' sexual organs could get you a prison sentence - but chopping off bits of them, well that's something that's been going on for millennia so it must be OK.
Because our politicians are afraid of the consequences of confronting the savages that do this.Only thinking of FGM in this instance, i cant imagine that circumcision for boys is anywhere near as dramatic.
Point wasn't there shouldn't be an outrage, but that one practice is seen as normal behaviour to the point it's being performed by the NHS
While I'm personally opposed to circumcision, it's a less clear cut argument than FGM. FGM exists only to oppress women, deprive them of a basic human pleasure and has absolutely no positive effects at all. FGM is barbaric and must be stopped immediately, with a mandatory charge of sexual assault and GBH for anyone who performs it. There is some evidence to suggest circumcised men are less susceptible to some soft tissue infections, some STD's and somewhat less susceptible to HIV. It is near impossible to quantify and decreased sexual stimulation as each person is slightly different, and comparatively few men are circumcised when sexually active. The problem with circumcision is that it's performed without the boys consent. It is tyre that handy children get their ears pierced without consent, however you can choose it to wear ear rings, however it's far harder to choose to have a foreskin re installed.
One shouldn't really do postings on the interweb after several units.. Anyways, I think the question has some validity. A guy at work did have it done in his 20's to change to some religion or another and get married. Confirms serious pain for weeks, and lessened sensation post op. The fact I don't like is both are done mainly without consent, for no advantage other then cultural tradition. If anyone wants to go chopping at their bits as adults, I wont have any protests. To each their own. Boring. Lets just leave it.
It is true that some evidence to that effect has been advanced. The argument (even if the evidence were valid) amounts to saying that a slight reduction in the risk of certain infections later in life justifies carrying out the irreversible sexual mutilation of non-consenting people so as to obtain the benefit of that potential risk-reduction. Actually, the evidence referred to is seriously flawed, and seems to have been artificially contrived for religious reasons; genuine, objective evidence is thin on the ground.
I guess it's no surprise that the evidence suggesting circumcision has a minimal effect comes from the us where the practice us wide spread, and there is a massive Jewish community..
I agree that consenting adults are perfectly entitled to pierce various parts of their bodies, have tattoos, slash their own wrists, or commit suicide if they choose to. Self-harming isn't (or shouldn't be) illegal, even if many people think it is idiotic or incomprehensible. To each their own, as you say. The key ethical concept is consent. Unfortunately to religiots consent is irrelevant - their equivalent to ethics is imposing upon others arbitrary rules written in an old book.
I think others have said it all, but surely this is like other areas of debate, such as the recent spate of celebrity accusations/convictions.... you have to look at things in terms of where they sit in a spectrum, and in this case the "MGM" is a very long way from FGM on whatever spectrum they belong on. If it's true that the NHS provides free circumcision operations where there is no medical necessity, then that really is shocking, because it would effectively be cosmetic surgery, paid for by taxes, at a time when,accoring to today's news, elderly patients are being denied necessary and worthwhile surgery such as gall-bladder removal.
It is true that they sit in a spectrum. Mutilations carried out on the genital organs of young boys and girls may be minor, or major, or so catastrophic that they lead to death in both sexes. If you were a boy who died from this cause (this is not theoretical, many die each year), you might think this was no less serious than in the case of girls. Assuming you were old enough to think, which of course you would not be. In my view it is the fact of a gross sexual assault by an adult on a helpless child which is important. The precise degree of harm inflicted, varying in each case, is not germane, and nor are the spurious "justifications" given by the perpetrators.
The NHS could provide a service of cutting off parts of babies' fingers toes or ears, which would be less harmful than cutting off parts of their sexual organs.
