Rush said:
Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you even know what female "circumsicion" IS?

Handy diagram (click the picture for bigger version):

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

A foreskin is comparable to the clitoral hood. Also called the "prepuce" on both men and women. Figure B, description A would be comparable to a male circumcision.

Having the clitoris removed is like removing the entire penis. Sewing up the labia would be like, I dunno, wrapping the scrotum around the penis and sewing it up.

I was waiting for it... and yes, I was fully aware of what female circumcision (or female genital mutilation if you prefer) was before I wrote my previous post. My point wasn't that the actuality of the two procedures can be compared, merely the practice of them as a societal or cultural tenant is comparable.

While I would (and will) gladly have my hypothetical son circumcised, I wouldn't dream of doing it to my daughter. That being said, my second point was that I don't believe people from other cultures have a right to dictate what is and is not acceptable practices. And I stand by that conviction even to the extreme of something like tribal cannibalism.

Lastly, you can't compare the excise of the clit to the removal of the entire penis as many women who have been circumcised, even type 3, are still sexually functional and able to achieve orgasm. However, considering this is practiced in regions where sex is generally had for only two reasons (procreation and male pleasure) and women's pleasure is generally unimportant, i'm not sure it makes that much of a difference anyway. It's only when we storm in from our enlightened moral high ground and convince them that what's been done to them isn't "right" that they have any notion of it at all. Again, who are we to judge?

Rush said:

Imagician said:

Scinge said:
I saw a picture in National Geo once of a middle eastern girl going through the happy coming of age ritual of being circumsized.

I'm probably going to get crucified for saying this, but I don't necessarily have a problem with female circumcision. At least, the fundamental principle behind it anyway... Who are we to pass judgement on someone else's cultural practices? Is it any different to a Jewish boy having his foreskin removed? I hear you screaming "But that's done when he's a baby, he doesn't know any better!" It still means he wasn't given a choice... Yet that's far more accepted than female circumcision. What about a young African woman having her lip sliced open and a plate inserted? What about rings being placed around her neck until her neck is so elongated and weak that if the rings were to be removed the sheer weight of her head would snap her neck? Yet, these also seem to be more accepted forms of cultural practice.

To qualify my view point, I must say that, if female circumcision is to be performed, it should be performed in a sterile environment with a local anaesthetic, not just a brutal hack and slash operation which seems to be the norm.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you even know what female "circumsicion" IS?

Handy diagram (click the picture for bigger version):

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

A foreskin is comparable to the clitoral hood. Also called the "prepuce" on both men and women. Figure B, description A would be comparable to a male circumcision.

Having the clitoris removed is like removing the entire penis. Sewing up the labia would be like, I dunno, wrapping the scrotum around the penis and sewing it up.

+1.

I do have to add, just as an aside, that the statement of "...who are we to pass judgment on another's culture..." is, as always, the ultimate, lazy assed, bullshit cop-out.

Let ME explain. Deciding to wear a burhka is a "cultural decision". Being held down while someone cuts your genitals without anesthesia (clit or not) is manslaughter. I don't give a shit what your "cultural heritage" is. Mutilating an unwilling participant does not fall under the protective umbrella of "respecting cultural diversity" Not just period...but fucking period.

"Aww...it's just an honor killing. It's their culture." "He's just raping your daughter. It's their culture!" What a lame assed load of crap.

I'm actually surprised that she was allowed to have the sex change...

Imagician said:

Rush said:
Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you even know what female "circumsicion" IS?

Handy diagram (click the picture for bigger version):

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

A foreskin is comparable to the clitoral hood. Also called the "prepuce" on both men and women. Figure B, description A would be comparable to a male circumcision.

Having the clitoris removed is like removing the entire penis. Sewing up the labia would be like, I dunno, wrapping the scrotum around the penis and sewing it up.

I was waiting for it... and yes, I was fully aware of what female circumcision (or female genital mutilation if you prefer) was before I wrote my previous post. My point wasn't that the actuality of the two procedures can be compared, merely the practice of them as a societal or cultural tenant is comparable.

While I would (and will) gladly have my hypothetical son circumcised, I wouldn't dream of doing it to my daughter. That being said, my second point was that I don't believe people from other cultures have a right to dictate what is and is not acceptable practices. And I stand by that conviction even to the extreme of something like tribal cannibalism.

Lastly, you can't compare the excise of the clit to the removal of the entire penis as many women who have been circumcised, even type 3, are still sexually functional and able to achieve orgasm. However, considering this is practiced in regions where sex is generally had for only two reasons (procreation and male pleasure) and women's pleasure is generally unimportant, i'm not sure it makes that much of a difference anyway. It's only when we storm in from our enlightened moral high ground and convince them that what's been done to them isn't "right" that they have any notion of it at all. Again, who are we to judge?

You're right. It's actually exactly the equivalent to cutting off just the glans of the penis (since they are actually the same organ, in a different state of development due to hormonal differences.)

And I totally agree with you about the cultural thing. I mean, the Egyptian enslavement of millions was a cultural tradition. The conquering European empires were (inarguably) simply following centuries of tradition. The Norse regularly slaughtered infants showing the slightest traits of developmental disability.

I'm totally on your side. No matter how ridiculously heinous or barbaric an action is - if it comes from a legitimate historical tradition it must be embraced and cherished.

/sarcasm

P.S. Don't try to hide your idiotic comment under the "...Alas, I knew it was coming..." header. Just take your lumps and move on.

You've seen Team America: World Police haven't you?

So it's up to you to choose which cultural practices are and are not acceptable based on what? U.S cultural morality or religious morality? That's sure as hell not something I'd base rational judgement on...

Again, I raise the point; why aren't you addressing the issue of lip plates or neck rings or male circumcision? They're all forms for "mutilation" performed on unwilling (or unknowing) participants.

i agree with you totally that the mutilation of an unwilling participant is wrong, abhorrent, and every effort should be made to stamp it out...i urge you to consider, however: i wasn't consulted when my foreskin was cut off

this in no way equates the two acts, i'm just pointing out that i believe those of us who are hard-line against unwilling female genital mutilation (as i am) should reevaluate our position on unwilling male genital mutilation as well

You know, that sounds good in a philosophy class and all...but I think most reasonably intelligent people can find the "fine line" between reasonable cultural traditions and gross violations of human rights.

Seriously...even you don't buy that line of crap.

I mean, as with all things, there are some concepts that fall into areas of grey - and some things that are clearly simply deplorable actions.

Based on what? Hmmm...let's see. How about, if everybody on the planet thinks it's an atrocity except the individual or "culture" committing it...I'd feel pretty good about my "irrational judgment".

I didn't see where you raised it before...but who said I approved of those things? Regardless, lip plates and neck rings are not, actually, imposed upon unwilling participants. In fact, being a sign of feminine maturity, you have to be of a certain age to participate.

I might be willing to concede male circumcision as a "grey area", since only skin tissue is removed...not a complete organ (the clit/glans.) However, circumcision on an infant is borderline at best and, if done without anesthesia and proper medical conditions, IS actually prosecutable as manslaughter in the U.S.

Again, it all sounds good in theory but you're not really struggling with the separation between the "imposition of a western culture" and "It's wrong to hold a child down and cut their fucking (genitals) off." Are you?!

Since we want to throw comparisons in, I did mention "honor killings" (you do know what those are I assume.) They have been a part of Middle Eastern culture for centuries. So, based on your stance of "cultural tolerance", it's OK to kill your own daughter because she may have been raped when she got kidnapped?

Goddamn...i can't believe you're serious about this. Forceful removal of body parts is a human rights issue, not a clash of culture over moral superiority or relativism. It's pretty fucking clear that permanent and irreversible damage has been done in the case or female genital mutilation. It's a human rights issue because no one has the right to forcibly remove body parts from someone else. It's that simple. It's monstrous, barbaric and traumatizing for countless numbers of women every year.

I suppose it IS a cultural difference but kindly remove your head from ass and stop this "we can't judge their culture because we don't know what it's like to be them" bullshit m'kay.

The fundamental principle behind it is to deny a woman's sexuality and individuality and the freakish concept that she's a fully realized person capable of and deserving to make her own decisions. It's to eliminate the possibility for sexual pleasure, so that she won't go around fucking everyone (since that's what they feel a girl's gonna do if she's got all her bits in working order)...

I cannot believe that you meant this seriously. Holy crap, how can you belong to this site which is all about glorifying women, and then say something that shows how you so clearly hate them? What the fuck is up with that? I'm refusing to believe it. You're just on a whole lot of drugs, that's it. You're on a lot of drugs and you didn't get the girl and you hate yourself. That's my explanation.

You are right, I was being flip about this. There has to be some better options though!

TheFox said:

Rush said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Imagician said:

Scinge said:
I saw a picture in National Geo once of a middle eastern girl going through the happy coming of age ritual of being circumsized.

I'm probably going to get crucified for saying this, but I don't necessarily have a problem with female circumcision. At least, the fundamental principle behind it anyway... Who are we to pass judgement on someone else's cultural practices? Is it any different to a Jewish boy having his foreskin removed? I hear you screaming "But that's done when he's a baby, he doesn't know any better!" It still means he wasn't given a choice... Yet that's far more accepted than female circumcision. What about a young African woman having her lip sliced open and a plate inserted? What about rings being placed around her neck until her neck is so elongated and weak that if the rings were to be removed the sheer weight of her head would snap her neck? Yet, these also seem to be more accepted forms of cultural practice.

To qualify my view point, I must say that, if female circumcision is to be performed, it should be performed in a sterile environment with a local anaesthetic, not just a brutal hack and slash operation which seems to be the norm.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you even know what female "circumsicion" IS?

Handy diagram (click the picture for bigger version):

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

A foreskin is comparable to the clitoral hood. Also called the "prepuce" on both men and women. Figure B, description A would be comparable to a male circumcision.

Having the clitoris removed is like removing the entire penis. Sewing up the labia would be like, I dunno, wrapping the scrotum around the penis and sewing it up.

I do wish they would call it something other than "female circumcision" - it does imply something fairly innocuous. Thanks for posting a better version of what I was gonna.

Historically, it has been also called "female genital mutilation."

I think that's a better term and isn't as misleading.

I can't believe they still do this shit in some parts of the world.

From a website on Female Genital Cutting:

Seems I've touched a nerve with some. There are "facts" being thrown around that simply aren't true or, at least, are not as clear cut as they are being stated. However, I'm not going to keep repeating my argument as I've stated it about as clearly as I can and I stand by it. It's a hard line I'm taking, I know, but I honestly believe that Imposing one cultural/religious morality on another is simply universally wrong. It causes cultural/religious tension and is precisely the reason things like 9/11 and terrorism occur.

One point I will clarify though, is that not once have I said I agree with female circumcision. I do think it is unnecessary and, often, cruel. So, I think to come to the conclusion that I hate women is a little misguided and frankly not true. And, with that, I'm moving on My apologies for ninja'ing the original discussion.

those old cronies should leave their kids sensetive bits alone, fucked up or what!

The problem is not that you've taken a hard-line, it's that you've taken a philosophical laboratory concept and attempted to apply it to a real world situation.

In theory I agree with you - that one "culture" can't define the standards of another...and when it's just a concept in a lab (or debate chat room)...that's fine. But once one hits the real world, there are not-hard-to-define places where relativism stands, and places where it's absurd.

The concept that a theory or philosophy must stand in all circumstances or fails to stand in any is naïve. To say that if one takes a stance (or even steps in to prevent) an atrocity such as female circumcision...soon we'll be requiring everyone to wear flowered polo shirts and eat cheeseburgers is just unrealistic.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that 9/11 occurred because of the western world's attempts to stop deplorable human rights violations.

How about human morality?

I don't even agree with male circumcision unless the male is old enough to make the decision for himself. It is a useless and pointless surgical procedure, IMO, and one that has become far too common in this day and age.