Demonising circumcision - a win for human rights, or loss for medicine/religion?

[Moses_Young]

WOW...I sincerely didn't expect to learn of an entirely new thing. I expected this to be a thread about male circumcision


I haven't looked into it (nor really want to but alas I cannot now "unknow" the existence of such a practice) so possibly could we keep it to a minimum and focus on male circumcision? It doesn't seem relevant to the discussion as it is illegal in most places and is considered genital mutilation by the World health organization.

Well, one of the reasons for the post is that it is becoming increasingly popular by some to claim male circumcision is the male equivalent of Female Genital Mutilation. Remember that FGM was not always illegal in the US, and it is only better education that has resulted in the practice becoming illegal in most countries over the past century. If the same trends follow over the next 100 years, male circumcision might likewise be considered genital mutilation by the World Health Organisation, and likewise be illegal in most civilised places.

Yes it is women who carry it out. But it’s out of tradition and also families worry men won’t want to marry women if they have not had FGM.

Do you have a source for this? I've certainly heard it said that women might not want an uncircumcised man as a husband, but still find it doubtful males would push FGM (except for religious reasons, as in the Islam faith).

Often it’s the fathers who insist the children must be mutilated, again out of tradition, part they want to be able to marry off their daughters and part family pride.

Again, excluding the religion of Islam, do you have a source for this?

 

[Miri]

Well, one of the reasons for the post is that it is becoming increasingly popular by some to claim male circumcision is the male equivalent of Female Genital Mutilation. Remember that FGM was not always illegal in the US, and it is only better education that has resulted in the practice becoming illegal in most countries over the past century. If the same trends follow over the next 100 years, male circumcision might likewise be considered genital mutilation by the World Health Organisation, and likewise be illegal in most civilised places.

Do you have a source for this? I've certainly heard it said that women might not want an uncircumcised man as a husband, but still find it doubtful males would push FGM (except for religious reasons, as in the Islam faith).

Again, excluding the religion of Islam, do you have a source for this?

Have a look at the following, they include tradition, making women easier to marry off,
preserving of vaginity, because some cultures think female body parts are ugly and need
reshaping (also that’s connected to breast ironing, and bending back of toes in china).
Plus much much more.

A lot has been done to women down the centuries and still happens, to make them more
desirable to men and easier to marry off. That’s where it all originates from, then it becomes
tradition.



https://hilaryburrage.com/2013/01/1...al-mutilation-occur-and-what-are-its-impacts/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...-the-uk-and-who-are-the-victims-a4055661.html


http://www.dofeve.org/about-fgm.html

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutilation-fgm/



https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation

 

[kaylagrl]

Well, one of the reasons for the post is that it is becoming increasingly popular by some to claim male circumcision is the male equivalent of Female Genital Mutilation.

It's not equivalent, not in the least. The intent is not the same, the results are not the same.

Remember that FGM was not always illegal in the US, and it is only better education that has resulted in the practice becoming illegal in most countries over the past century.

Yes, I have seen news reports where it has been done here in the US. It is still done in many countries, mainly those that practice Islam.

but still find it doubtful males would push FGM (except for religious reasons, as in the Islam faith).

This is mainly a practice done in Islamic countries. And yes, the males push for FGM. As our sister said, it is done for the increased pleasure of men. That is the main reason. Though women carry out the FGM the reason is for the pleasure of men. It is a horrific act and should not be compared to circumcision.

 

[Moses_Young]

Have a look at the following, they include tradition, making women easier to marry off,
preserving of vaginity [My edit: I think you meant virginity! ;-)], because some cultures think female body parts are ugly and need reshaping (also that’s connected to breast ironing, and bending back of toes in china).

I agree - these things are terrible, but don't you think they're the result of society, rather than just men? For example, I find it hard to believe any red-blooded man, left to his own devices, would think of any female body part as ugly, or say to himself "The breasts on that lady are too large. I think they need ironing flat." Toe-bending - that's almost too insane to comment on. If it's so good for women, why don't the men try it on themselves!?

Man has always subjugated his fellow man because of sin, but I don't think this can be blamed on one particular gender or race.

Plus much much more.

A lot has been done to women down the centuries and still happens, to make them more desirable to men and easier to marry off. That’s where it all originates from, then it becomes tradition.

I still find it hard to believe such practices started to make women more desirable. To me, it seems to be barbaric cultures/religions that allow abuse of those deemed lesser, and then the society follows by expecting this - a sort of bloodlust.

https://hilaryburrage.com/2013/01/1...al-mutilation-occur-and-what-are-its-impacts/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...-the-uk-and-who-are-the-victims-a4055661.html

http://www.dofeve.org/about-fgm.html

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutilation-fgm/

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation

Thanks for the links - very informative. I agree that Female Genital Mutilation is barbaric and an abuse of human rights, but what about those who claim the 1A or 4 types (pricking, or excision of the clitoral hood) is comparable to male circumcision? How to convince those who insist that males and females are the same, that circumcision is a valid religious or medical practice, but FGM - even type 1A or 4, is not?