Genital cutting is

By L3thal
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

L3thal Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
GENEVA - A World Health Organization official says having doctors supervise genital cutting is "the same as attempting murder with a clean knife." :blink:

A report from the WHO says the practice is torture and must be stopped, even if it's done by medical workers. It's mainly done in Africa and the Middle East.

An assistant director-general of the international health group says the practice "is the worst thing that a medical doctor could possibly do."

A UNICEF report last year said more girls are being cut by medical workers, which may help prevent the spread of HIV through the use of cleaner instruments. But the WHO opposes anything that might legitimize the practice.

Those who practice it believe the cutting tames sexual desire and increases a girl's marriage chances.

The WHO study in The Lancet medical journal found the practice inflates risks of complications for both mother and child in birth.

MSNBC

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/466609-genital-cutting-is/
Share on other sites
Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

It's great that they criticise female circumcision but how about the same for guys? Any mutilation of a body, whether it be ear piercing or circumcision, should not be allowed without the consent and understanding of the child - really that should be around 10-12yrs old. I don't care what religion says - it should not be forced upon children.

Mentor

Nathanael

Posted
Posted

but circumcision changes nothing really. I mean, it doesn't limit the guy in any way, it's just a hell of a lot cleaner.

Now female circumcision? Pure evil, and outlawed by many religions (islam included).

You can do some googling on that and it'll reveal that circumcised penises are supposed to get less sensitive.

Experienced

HellboundIRL

Posted
Posted

It's great that they criticise female circumcision but how about the same for guys? Any mutilation of a body, whether it be ear piercing or circumcision, should not be allowed without the consent and understanding of the child - really that should be around 10-12yrs old. I don't care what religion says - it should not be forced upon children.

:yes: Agreed, its something of a very sensitive manly nature and I believe that the decision should only be made by that person alone, no one else.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

but circumcision changes nothing really. I mean, it doesn't limit the guy in any way, it's just a hell of a lot cleaner.

Sure, you may believe that to be true and may not mind, but why should it be forced upon you when you have no choice? The human body is designed to have it. It is widely reported to reduce the sensitivity of men, much like the procedure does for women, yet people happily criticise female circumcision and happily accept male circumcision. It is just plain wrong to do it without consent. What about the apendix? It can cause complications later in life so why don't we operate on all children and have it removed? Circumcision is a backwards practice for backwards people.

It's far more common in the US than the rest of the world (with the highest rates being in the Southern states). In the US the percentage circumcised in 1979 reached 85%, whereas the rest of the western world is around 10-20%. I don't know what the hell happened over there and why it became so much more accepted, it's just the rest of the world doesn't have the same need to lop off part of a child's body - it was actually promoted as cleaner by the American Academy of Pediatrics and they even [wrongfully] claimed it could reduce chances of cancer, though they have now changed their position.

http://www.nocirc.org/position/

Proficient

david622

Posted
Posted

yeah, i know nothing of female circumcision, but male circumcision is perfectly healthy, and in fact, doctors argue that circumcised males are healthier than those that are non-circumcised. whether or not this is true is irrelevant, the fact is, it doesn't make you potent to disease after being circumcised.

i see nothing wrong with circumcision. as it was said before, it doesn't limit the man in any way. a responsible parent can make the right decision about whether or not to circumcise his or her baby. and if he isn't circumcised as a baby, he can always opt to do it as an adult.

personally, i'm glad i was circumcised as baby, because it'd suck a LOT more if i chose to do it now, being that i can't remember a thing about it as an infant.

Grand Master

Miuku.

Posted
Posted

whether or not this is true is irrelevant

What?

personally, i'm glad i was circumcised as baby, because it'd suck a LOT more if i chose to do it now

See the difference here is - you wouldn't do it nowadays because there is absolutely no reason to do so.

And as for the cleaner, what - didn't your parents teach you how to wash yourself?

Oh I get it, it's the easy way out from actually being a parent that teaches your children, just snip a little here, a little there and hey - no need to talk about 'the private parts'.

Community Regular

userguy

Posted
Posted

No kidding. Male genital mutilation is no big deal to most people, yet threatening a man's genitals is considered a pretty goddamned big deal ("I'll cut your dick off," "I'll cut your balls off," "I'll kick you in the nuts").

What it comes down to is this: walk up to any man on the street and give him the option: "Excuse me sir, but if you'd let me cut part of your dick off you can spend thirty seconds less each day in the shower. Are you interested?"

Walk up to any circumcised man and give him the option: "Excuse me sir, but if you'd let me cut a little more of your dick off you can spend even less time in the shower each day. Are you interested?"

Cutting off any part of the body, except when that part of the body is dead or threatens the life of any of the rest of the body, is WRONG and to think that it's done regularly to the penis--of all parts--is an affront to our sense of civilization.

Some people may still not care--it may still not be a big deal to know that it's done--and that's perfectly ok by me. But some people do care very passionately about it and with very sound reasoning behind caring their argument should be given more weight when we're talking about doing it to people that have no voice in the matter, who can't decide for themselves. If you don't care, if it isn't a big deal, then those statements go both ways--not being mutilated is no big deal and you don't care.

Don't make an irreversible decision to cut part of the most sensitive part of the body off of your child for them. There is no argument that can be made that can rationally call for amputation (or what it truly is, mutilation).

Read more before deciding to pull out the knife:

http://www.mgmbill.org/

Grand Master

lav-chan

Posted
Posted

There isn't really an arguement you can make in support of it, but what's the arguement against it? 'It's wrong' doesn't really do it for me.

What's the difference to the guy if it happened before he can even remember? Even if it does decrease the pleasure of sex, so what? How would he even know what he's missing? It's like asking somebody if they'd have been happier if they were never born. How could you possibly have any basis to compare in the first place, you know?

Mentor

King Raa

Posted
Posted

How would he even know what he's missing? It's like asking somebody if they'd have been happier if they were never born. How could you possibly have any basis to compare in the first place, you know?

Indeed, like asking someone born without a hand if they miss having a hand, how could they possibly know that they're limited? It's not like the knowledge would be freely available to them that they could enjoy life potentially more with 2 hands (think about everything that requires 2 hands). I'd say it shouldn't be an option at all, I'd gladly have more fun and 30 seconds more in the shower, hell I spend ages in the shower anyway so it'd be no difference. Then again I do agree that he wouldn't really know what he's missing as obviously as someone missing a hand, and that it is nowhere near as bad as what is done to girls.

Grand Master

lav-chan

Posted
Posted
Indeed, like asking someone born without a hand if they miss having a hand, how could they possibly know that they're limited? It's not like the knowledge would be freely available to them that they could enjoy life potentially more with 2 hands (think about everything that requires 2 hands).

That isn't the same thing at all. Having decreased 'sensitivity' during an activity that you occasionally spend a few minutes doing (and presumably still enjoy) is pretty different from being unable to function properly in every-day life. There's no lack of function, it's just a vaguely different reaction to it.

(Anyway i don't support forced circumcision for anybody, i'm just wondering what kind of arguements people are using against it if not the old 'it's not your body' stand-by.)

Grand Master

Echilon

Posted
Posted

It's great that they criticise female circumcision but how about the same for guys?

It's different for guys. We have alot more that's sensitive down there, whereas if a girl doesn't have her clitoris, she's lost alot of sensitivity. I'm not particularly against male circumcision, since it's just removal of skin, but to cut off someones clitoris is plain mutilation.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.