General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFemale genital mutilation procedure 'hurted a lot,' child says
CNN)A 7-year-old girl who underwent a painful genital mutilation procedure told federal investigators that after a doctor completed the process, she was rewarded with a piece of cake for "doing good."
Court documents obtained by CNN contain that account, along with other details in the cases of three medical professionals now facing charges in the first federal female genital mutilation case in the United States.
The father of the girl -- one of two 7-year-olds who underwent the procedure on the same day -- told investigators, "that if they knew what would come of it, this would never have happened," according to the documents.
The documents identify the parents, but CNN is not naming them to protect the child's identity. While three medical professionals face trial in the case, no charges have been filed against the parents.
This month, two Michigan doctors and the wife of one of the doctors were charged with performing a banned female genital mutilation procedure on the two little girls, both from Minnesota.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/us/female-genital-mutilation-girl-testimony/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)The child should be adopted out to people with some intelligence and compassion. Even a pack of dogs would protect her better.
Vesper
(229 posts)LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)I was trying to say these people are backwards, not very evolved, and not bright. I really screwed that up and besmirched the good Neanderthal people in the process.
Vesper
(229 posts)but those Neanderthals only cannibalized their young, they didn't cut off parts of their genitals, I assume. If only because they lacked the cultural practice and the tools to do so.
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)and try to deflect their arguments to defend religions and cultures that do this. Keep your fucking blades away from the children..
or else.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)People do dumb things because of culture/religious beliefs. The practice is believed to have originated in Africa (it certainly predated Islam). It is hard to change cultural practices like this, though.
Horrifying, but still unfortunately common.
LOL Lib
(1,462 posts)
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)A little girl has her clitoris removed. She doesn't understand the point. She is not given the opportunity to understand her anatomy before something horrific is done to her. She felt a "little pinch" where she goes pee. That is her reality now. In six or seven years, she'll become fully aware of what the procedure really meant. That is when the really, really sad part of her life begins. What will she think of her parents? What will she think of herself? Welcome to lifelong therapy. This is the highest order of abuse anyone could inflict on her.
Warpy
(111,352 posts)because it is thought that sexually inert women won't leave.
Well, they do and for the same reasons the rest of us have when we leave.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,712 posts)I am horrified, angry and sad.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Nothing short of life without parole!
Initech
(100,104 posts)But these inhuman monsters are making a pretty strong case for it. Fuck these people.,
Pachamama
(16,887 posts)Maybe they won't perform that surgery again. And if the doctors are female or women assisted - well, maybe there is something of theirs to be removed too.
Without anesthesia
JudyM
(29,279 posts)
MFM008
(19,820 posts)shocking for Gods sake, its 2017 not 1517.
JI7
(89,271 posts)fuck the doctors .
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)I think circumcision of both sexes is wrong and there is no medical benefit, it's all socioreligious and it's literally the same procedure for both sexes.
Apparently the jury is out on the orgasm thing, based on how much tissue is cut. There is literally a direct comparison when you're talking about mutilating genitals, regardless of how much function you retain. It's abhorrent for the same reasons. If men and women wish to do so after reaching the age of consent that's a whole other story, but there is no medical reason to mutilate or cut the genitals at all, of either gender.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and frequently done to dilute the actual conversation
Vesper
(229 posts)say in the matter. When one pretends that the facts don't matter, but that emotion and tradition should carry sway THAT is incredibly dishonest, and is frequently done because of personal biases.
It's acceptable in western cultures to cut off genital tissue in males, thus that's treated as something totally different than the other wetern cultures where they have the same attitude to doing the same to girls. There is bias there that one must acknowledge, to not be incredibly dishonest about a direct one to one comparison.
I think it's appalling what was done to these little girls, but the fact that they're girls and 7 and not baby boys doesn't make it somehow worse. They're both equally barbaric and equally repugnant. It does not and should not dilute the outrage over what's happening to these girls to also state that it's a barbaric thing to be happening to boys, simply because that is the norm here.
Barbaric things are the norm all over the world, doesn't make them any less barbaric and pointing that out doesn't dilute the criticism the same procedure based on sex and age. They're equally wrong, and we if we're going to be honest, intellectually, medically and emotionally, we have to acknowledge both.
In no way have I "diluted" anything here, nor have I been dishonest, I take offense to the insinuation.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)where one sex goes on to have meaningful and satisfying sex and other does not.
also, you are wrong about the basic biology. it is like comparing and appendectomy to a hysterectomy.
Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #20)
Post removed
obamanut2012
(26,142 posts)Because, you are 100% wrong on everyone.
Vesper
(229 posts)How fucking messed up is that? Seriously, how do you people defend this crap?
Because they're doctors, in clinical settings and it's normal to you?
Those apply to the doctor who did this to this little girl. You are 100% wrong on the ethics, morality and facts here, stop defending this atrocity simply because one is familiar to you, when the same atrocity is worthy of condemnation.
What happened to this little girl and others is contemptible, why you pretend that the others does not include boys who were also mutilated.
100% wrong to defend this.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)It's not the same thing. Quit trying to hijack this thread with a male circumcision argument.
Vesper
(229 posts)by people who look like them and to little boys.
Quit defending genital mutilation and stop this disgusting argument that it's okay to do it to boys and not to girls.
It's evil to mutilate ANY child. Cut it out and stop with the grossness.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The ethical question of altering a child's body without their consent is only one part of the argument against FGM. You're completely ignoring 1) ethical objections to performing surgeries without medical justification, and 2) the sheer brutality of the procedure itself.
You might not believe that the medical justifications for male circumcision outweigh the ethical obligation to informed consent -- and I would agree -- but the medical justification nevertheless exists. There is no medical justification for FGM at all. It is more invasive, usually performed at an older age, and presents a longer recovery period and a litany of short-to-long term complications.
I don't remember being circumcised. I might look down from time and time and wish that I had been consulted before an intimate part of my body was irreparably altered, but that's about the extent of it. The two young girls mutilated in Michigan are going to remember the experience of being under the knife for the rest of their lives.
Not. The. Same.
Vesper
(229 posts)you falsely accuse me of ignoring.
I'm LITERALLY arguing that ALL forms of genital mutilation are reprehensible, you're ignoring what I actually literally said to assert stuff that's literally the arguments of the people who seem to have some problems with my assertion that all forms of genital mutilation are bad, they see to be carving out exceptions for mutilations done on little boys in American hospitals.
There actually is no medical justification for it when the prepuce is not abnormally causing problems. There is "medical justification" for the abuse visited on girls too, this woman made it, based on the same reasons that the pediatricians claim are the justifications for male mutilation. Family tradition, religious and cultural beliefs, "hygiene" and a bunch of other stuff that is not evidence based medicine at all.
It's invasive to cut away healthy tissue without actual medical justification period, regardless of the age, my only point is that the gender shouldn't matter either.
This argument that if one does not remember then no damage is done, or if one can orgasm then it's fine, or if it's done in a hospital, by a doctor or a religious leader etc. these arguments fail. That's kind of my point.
You don't actually know that they will remember this experience, and to me, it doesn't matter if they do or not, my objection is that it was done at all, and my objection extends to the boys.
Still. The. Same. Equally. Reprehensible.
Yes, one to a greater degree than the other, but when we're dealing with atrocities of this nature, the degree is a distinction without much of a difference, they both must stop, regardless of all the excuses being used to defend this practice.
Please take a moment to read what I literally actually wrote and realize that you don't disagree with me, as much as you're trying to, there is medical justification for the majority of these procedures, and they're medically the removal of the same nerve tissues. One is just the norm in your culture and it offends you that the norm in another culture is that it's an older child and you don't like the reasons it's being done. I agree with you, but I find it repulsive period, and I'm not blinded by a cultural bias.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The actual literal problem is that I actually literally understand what the word "equally" actually literally means. FGM and male circumcision are both actually literally bad, but they are not actually literally equally bad, because actual literal reasons you've actually literally already been provided.
obamanut2012
(26,142 posts)tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)It is also another attempt at minimizing a barbaric practice on girls by equating it to a totally different procedure performed on boys. Can't let those women have any issues without having to bring up men can we?
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Both fall under the "very bad" category (both of these practices are barbaric and should be considered child abuse) but the impact of the SUV (FGM) is exponentially greater than the impact of the motorcycle (male circumcision) and pretending that they are the same in terms of impact to functioning, pain inflicted (especially since FGM occurs at older ages; I obviously don't remember) and the social context behind the practices is absolutely ridiculous.
Also there's at least SOME medical argument for circumcision, even though it's mostly bullshit. There is literally no reason to ever perform FGM, ever. For another analogy it's like comparing the Potomac River to the the Nile River - they're both "long rivers", but one is MUCH MUCH longer.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Please. Just stop it.
Vesper
(229 posts)It's even in the name, they're both called circumcision and they're done for religious and social reasons that have no medical value whatsoever.
Please just stop denying facts based on emotion. Take a little kid and slicing off tissue from their genitals is literally the same thing, regardless of sex.
The prepuce and the clitoral hood are literally analogous structures. Please, just stop reacting emotionally and realize the embryology and the science state that you are wrong here.
It's pretty barbaric to cut little girls at age 7, would it be equally horrific to you if they did that to little boys at the same age? One is the norm in the US and the other is not, both are genital mutilation and both remove literally the same histologically identical tissue.
Why pretend that equivalent things are not equivalent, does it take away from the barbarity of what was done to these girls to acknowledge that we do the same to boys?
Acknowledge the bias and the simple science here.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)you are just wrong.
obamanut2012
(26,142 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)Any attempt to equate the two is a rhetorical tactic to appeal to emotionalism to justify one's opposition to circumcision.
If female genital mutilation referred only to the removal of the clitoral hood, then the comparison might be valid. However, since female genital mutilation covers a range of horrors, the likening of male circumcision to the practice as a whole is inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. It is a gross disservice to women and girls who have suffered this trauma.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)
Stargazer99
(2,599 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)I've explained the anatomy and the religious rituals, and the appeal to emotion is the underlying fallacy behind these arguments defending mutilation. Denying the facts and appealing to emotion as you all are doing is poor argument.
I'm in fact appealing to facts and evidence based medicine, you however are based solely in emotional and cultural bias.
Genital mutilation itself covers a wide range of horrors, but you outright deny the fact that this happens in both genders, and this is what is intellectually dishonest, it's emotional, I grant you, but it's not honest. It's a gross disservice to boys who also suffered this trauma and have the same feelings about it that these girls do. It was a wrong done to them and their cultural and religious bias leads them to propagate it.
Obviously they are equivalent you are literally arguing degrees here and insisting that sexual function, age and gender are what determine what make a barbaric act barbaric or not. That is a literal fallacious appeal to emotion, and denial of fact.
I get it, this is what's normal in your culture, you or your family members may have experienced it and it's part of your tradition, it might be a choice you make for your children, because it's seen as something that is beneficial.
Take a moment to put that bias on hold for a second, press the pause button on the racial/religious etc animus for a second, that Johns Hopkins educated, residency trained, board certified doctor, for whom it was a cultural norm, who probably had it performed on her, who thought it was beneficial for her patients, also felt the same thing you do.
You're both wrong. The act of genital mutilation of a child, no matter what degree or what level of sexual function is left, is still a wrong act. Period. It's not an emotional thing, it's an acknowledgement of reality, without the cultural bias.
This is a practice that is not common in the world, the US is one of the few countries in the world where it's accepted as the "norm" everyone else is horrified by it who doesn't do it for religious reasons themselves. That same disgust you feel towards this doctor and the people who advocate for mutilation is what others feel for those who make these distinctions without a difference.
I'm not sure why stating that cutting little kids in the genitals for cultural reasons is so controversial, but the emotional reaction, the rejection of reality, of facts, of simple anatomy is ridiculous.
The simple science here says that you're wrong, and I have no bias towards circumcision that you and the other defending this form of mutilation do. My position, which should not be controversial is that genital mutilation is wrong period.
That you're here projecting your emotional reaction and arguing the merits of one over the other should give you pause, should you calm down and examine what I've actually said as opposed to what you reacted emotionally to.
It's cruel and dishonest to deny that genitally mutilating a child is NOT wrong, because of the age, gender, religion, culture or orgasm potential.
If there was less irrational emotional denial of simple science and that cultural bias here, you might have a hope of seeing that.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)Because your assumptions are false, your argument is false from the outset and requires no refutation. You accuse me of emotionalism, but that is a false charge and requires no refutation.
Look, I can see that you don't know how to argue a point, and it's pretty clear that you know it, too. Otherwise you wouldn't repeatedly appeal to emotionalism (as you continue to do), to false analogies (as you continue to do), etc.
I get it. You don't like circumcision. My suggestion is that you not undergo circumcision, and don't have the procedure performed upon anyone else in your care.
But you don't get to declare that circumcision is mutilation, nor that all mutilation is created equal. Your continued insistence to the contrary reveals an acutely misogynist basis for your thinking.
I'm done here. Continue posting whatever it is you've been posting if you wish, but I have no further interest in feeding you.
still_one
(92,409 posts)that is NOT what male circumcision is.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Circumcision is done primarily for health reasons, which are probably less relevant now than they used to be, but are still relevant. For example, cancer of the penis and infections. The health reasons are not negligible, and sexual function remains. Mayo Clinic on the topic:
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585
The PURPOSE of FGM is to remove sexual function from the female:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/06/egypt-lawmaker-female-genital-mutilation-needed-because-men-are-sexually-weak/?utm_term=.896302a7e3fb
In its worst forms, the woman is literally sewn up. In all but its symbolic forms, the sexual function of the female is greatly changed or destroyed.
I think you are very wrong to draw any sort of equivalence, it certainly does not belong in this thread.
demmiblue
(36,893 posts)taking out/destroying the malleus, incus and stapes. In the worst case scenario, of course.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)There is NO comparison in the two procedures. NONE. Men can still get erections, enjoy sex and achieve climax. This procedure is done TO WOMEN in order for her to NEVER enjoy sex. Stop the ludicrous comparisons.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)such a dishonest way to dilute the conversation about misogyny.
Vesper
(229 posts)There is literally a histologial, procedural equivalency to these EXACT procedures, with one being socially acceptable in the US and one not being so. The only difference here is the age at which the tissue is removed, it's the same tissue, prepuce and clitoral hood are identical structures. Not all of the clitoris is removed, so actually depending on how it's done, women can do the same.
I understand why the procedure is done, but it's moronic to pretend that identical things are not equivalent simply based on function. If a girl is able to climax after a procedure based on the erectile tissue that's left, does that somehow make it less repugnant and barbaric?
Just fucking stop talking about orgasms already and figure out that cutting little kids genital structures is totally barbaric, and saying so shouldn't lead to people telling you to fucking stop pointing out the barbarity and the factual equivalence here.
There is literal direct comparison, and people need to fucking stop excusing genital mutilation for religious and social reasons PERIOD. It's fucking sick to state that mutilation is just fine, as long as orgasms are still possible. How fucking messed up is that statement?????
Orrex
(63,224 posts)Yet you seem to imagine that this distinction is impossible, even as you scold people for emotionalism.
Why?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)There are MEDICAL reasons for circumcism (not religious, not societal) - that's why most are done IN HOSPITALS. There's a reason they mutilate 7 year old girls IN SECRET. And it's so they will never enjoy sex. PERIOD. Your ridiculous comparisons of the two just make you look foolish.
Vesper
(229 posts)I'd like to point out to you that THIS act of genital mutilation was ALSO done by a Johns Hopkins educated doctor in a clinical setting.
The reason it's done in secret here is that there is no tradition of mutilating 7 year olds here in the genitals, it's been normalized as a procedure in the hospital when little boys are infants.
I know why they're doing it, but I'm making factual comparisons, while you guys are yammering on foolishly about how if the child can still orgasm, and it's done in a HOSPITAL and not IN SECRET, that mutilating a child's genitals is okay.
You might want to go learn about this MEDICAL reason you claim exists, so that you can learn what your bias is.
Your denial of basic facts and defense of mutilation because it's done in a hospital setting is beyond foolish, it's just wrong.
The problem with bias is that when you're suffering from it, you don't realize it, and you're afflicted. These are religious and cultural rituals and family traditions, there is no medical reasons for mutilating children's genitals. PERIOD, I don't care who is doing it, where it's being done or why, the act of cutting off genital tissue is barbaric PERIOD.
Ms. Toad
(34,092 posts)Correct. So if you don't understand the difference in degree of surgery and harm, do some resesarch.
FGM is generally much more extreme than male circumcision (often including removal of the entire clitoris, removing or abrading the labia and and sewing the entire vaginal opening shut so that surgery is required (or very violent sex) in order to make sex possible - and sometimes even in order for the girl to mensturate. It is typically done at a much older age so the emotional trauma is more damaging. It is virtulally always done outside of a medical setting so (aside from any other concerns) is a much riskier procedure from an overall health perspective.
I'm not going to justify male circumcision - before my daughter was born, I had decided that if she were male there would be no circumcision. But to compare male circumcision, as it is carried out in our culture, with female genital mutiliation is ignorant - in the true sense of the word. Educate yourself.
Vesper
(229 posts)You guys are literally arguing that as long as orgasms are possible that it's not always so.
I'm not suggesting that FGM is somehow good, I'm arguing that ALL genital mutilation for non medical reasons is horrible.
The Johns Hopkins educated doctor in a clinic in Livonia is did not follow that extreme procedure you describe, more than likely, since she wasn't in village somewhere and a local elder or whomever performs these atrocities usually. So the comparison you're making is invalid.
I'm suggesting that any and all mutilation, regardless of sexual function, regardless of age is wrong.
This is literally an article about it being done in a medical setting, by a qualified doctor, and which is most likely not done in the manner you describe, and it's still horrific.
Thank you for not jumping onto that culturally biased bandwagon, but the comparison is valid and the denial is ignorant, given the facts in this case. In the true sense of the word, READ THE ARTICLE and educate yourself.
It doesn't matter how genital mutilation is carried out, it is an abhorrent practice, regardless of sexual function retained, gender or age. Please educate yourself.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You're trying to compare the removal of a child's foreskin with a procedure that will make the simple act of urination PAINFUL. Just fucking stop it. You want to start a thread about the evils of circumcism, knock yourself out but trying to compare it to what was done to this 7 year old girl looks like nothing but pathetic deflection.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Both are barbaric saying that does does not lessen the severity of either one. It is not a competition to see which is worse it is a statement that both are horrible practices.
I wholeheartedly accept the idea that the impact of the procedure on woman is more severe but that does not make male circumcision any less barbaric.
Neither should be tolerated until the age of consent.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Picket and protest at your local hospital, write your representatives - don't come here and deflect from what happened to this little girl in the name of religion by bringing up a procedure that is no way similar to what happened to this child.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Which is complete nonsense.
And I will post anywhere I please, thanks much.
What happened to this little girl is horrifying and should not be allowed. That does not change the fact that male cicumcision is bullshit as well yet is acceptable in our society.
My interest in this discussion is the absolute societal bias present in this discussion.
There are no credible studies I am aware of that show a concrete benefit to circumcision of any sort male or female. The practice should be ended period.
Yes of the two I find female circumcision far more disturbing but that does not change the fact that both are ridiculous practices brought to us by religion.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Welcome to ignore.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Not surprising in the least
Vesper
(229 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)no matter what.
I was merely agreeing that this was terrible and that little boys should not be ignored when addressing these religious rituals with no evidence based medicine to back it up.
So many things are asserted and so much emotional garbage and with the racial/cultural superiority rearing its ugly head, that's the real underlying impetus behind the emotional reactions here.
The only situation where there is some evidence to back up male circumcision is when the prepuce is too tight and does not retract fully, causing pain and other problems. That's it from what I've seen on pubmed. The pediatric organizations lay it out pretty clearly that the reasons are pretty much bull shit, "family tradition", "religious reasons", "personal hygiene" (though this one is pure bull shit). They do it because they always have and as these people in a high emotional dudgeon demonstrate, it's the cultural norm in the US. Many don't even know it's an American thing (when religion isn't specially indicated) for the most part and is not part of normal hospital procedures in the rest of the world, not just the western world.
I know several physicians who are immigrants and had practices and careers in other countries, they were forced to do a certain number of circumcisions here as part of their residency and they were mortified that they had to do this to little babies who were screaming in pain for no earthly reason that their practice history or medical education could justify.
I too am more disturbed by the abuse of women and the reasons why they do it, but I cannot understand how these guys talking about their own genitals and experiences can so freely condemn the parents and the doctors here, who share their outlook on the cultural norms and the personal experience.
It's wrong, it's mutilation, doesn't matter the age, the gender, the religion or the orgasms and why does it keep coming back to orgasms, as if it would be less atrocious if these girls had enough erectile tissue left to achieve them. Like that somehow makes cutting off healthy nerve tissues any more acceptable.
Manly_Scream
(72 posts)Is because when the point was repeatedly brought up to you that FGM makes pleasurable sex impossible for a woman, in order to "keep them in line" so they can live as livestock, you dismissed that as "emotional garbage".
Cultures where men are entitled to having jobs, having power, owning property, and yes, having PLEASURABLE SEX, *but* they keep the women in line by denying women the ability to pursue any of those aforementioned things, represents EVERYTHING that we stand against!
It represents the ideology that women are to stay in the kitchen, put her husband's and childrens' welfare over her own, never have any joy or accomplishments that are ever her own, just exists to be a vessel of the man's legacy. Exists to be his property.
Of course, you must prevent her from enjoying sex. Because then there's the risk she may leave her husband for someone better!
We mustn't have that! Society would collaspe!
Sure men do that all of the time, but these are WOMEN we're talking about here! They must stay in their place!
A woman who can enjoy sex AND go to any school she wants, have any job she wants, is a LIBERATED WOMAN.
It means she is an "equal".
This is fucking DEMOCRATIC Underground, not an MRA forum, and you're undermining that with a false equivalency.
As for my personal opinion on removal of foreskin, I don't have one, as I'm not a man, and don't have (nor want) any children.
But YES, if one form of mutiliation ruins someone's life, and takes a natural pleasurable experience away from them that they will NEVER GET BACK, there is no comparison.
Vesper
(229 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 27, 2017, 03:19 AM - Edit history (1)
Here is a history about this form of celebrated mutilation that you defend so vociferiously. I'm not deflecting from what happened to this little girl, I'm saying that it's a crime no matter how old the victim or their gender.
Stop lying to yourself and stop reacting emotionally and pretending the male circumsicion is anything but religiously condoned and celebrated mutilation.
Don't lecture to me about how it's pure and holy when the victims are infant boys and how bringing up the actual victims of such mutilation is somehow ignoring the plight of this girl. Defending it in the name of orgasms is sick.
ETA: Since there seems to be some issue with the timeline at the link I provided, here is another, which speaks to the similarity in claims made in circumscion in both males and females, they both make the same specious medical claims and they're both pretty much disproven. I posted the other link based upon its citations, and it's timeline format, without exploring the rest of the site, which had some questionable material, so here is wiki on the matter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Medical_concerns
It seems that many people need to spend some time doing some reading on this very emotional issue, the knee jerk reactions of what's apparently a well worn debate and the cliques that seem to have been preorganized and swarming wasn't really necessary, but whatever.
Go learn stuff.
There are citations and everything and clearly you need the education on topic since all you've done is rant and rave emotionally while literally attacking me on a personal level for presenting facts and arguing that ANYONE HARMING A CHILD IS BAD. Even if they're doctors, even if they're in a clinical setting, even if they're white Christian/Jewish males doing a religiously prescribed procedure with zero medical value except in very rare cases. That site has some of those rare cases too.
I wish you well in addressing your ignorance and you deeply held and offensive cultural biases. This is why Trump won, by the way, that cultural superiority and contempt runs through a lot of Americans, it just erupts up when one least expects it, as when one is throwing an emotional tantrum to defend genital mutilation in some circumstances and not others.
It's wrong ALL the time. Period.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)entire section devoted to "pizzagate".
Why are you linking to such bugfuck batshittery on DU?
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I wouldn't describe it as barbaric at all. See my other post for all the cites.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8984335
Crunchy Frog
(26,646 posts)If it were done primarily for health reasons, it would be common practice in all medically advanced countries, rather than being largely confined to the United States and the highly circumcised U.S. would have significantly better sexual health, and lower incidences of diseases it's alleged to prevent. This does not appear to be borne out by actual health statistics in the developed world.
I would be willing to bet that the cites are almost all American, and come from people who share the same cultural, social, and religious biases.
Barbarism is extremely subjective, and very much in the eye of the beholder.
"Barbaric" was the word used by one of my sons' NICU nurses, after I let her know I didn't want it done. She told me she actually passed out the first time she witnessed one.
Vesper
(229 posts)you, I suggest you stop engaging in them.
I'm successfully comparing the removal of histologically comparable structures from the genitals of young children based on barbaric rituals that have no basis in evidence based science, and which are nothing more than tradition, which you embrace when it's own while hypocritically with great dramatics condemn in others you deem inferior, there is no excusing the racist elements in your rant. You said it yourself.
Again, you have no basis to be testifying about how urination feels to women whom you condemn as barbaric people who should go back to where they come from (you literally said this). Just fucking stop with the drama queen nonsense.
This IS a fucking thread about the evils of circumcision and the barbaric rituals that make people who've been mutilated themselves active proponents of it, because their cultural bias blinds them to their own barbarity.
Denying that what was done to this 7 year old girl is exactly the same procedure done in the same setting by doctors trained to do so, is pathetic deflection. That doctor is as wrong headed as those who think male circumcision is just dandy since it happened to them and they don't remember the trauma of it.
THAT equivalence is also undeniable. The fact that you keep falling back on sexual function and orgasms to excuse the mutilation of genitals is pure bull shit.
Just fucking stop digging yourself in and exposing ever more bigotry and defending cutting kids in the genitals, it's wrong, that you don't see that is despicable.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)No this is a thread about what happened to THIS 7 year old girl, what happened to the doctors who performed the barbarity and her parents. When male circumcision is against the law like this is, THEN you will have a valid comparison. These doctors are criminals and the parents are accessories to a CRIME. YOU want to make it about male circumcision which is only deflection and a hijacking. It's pathetic.
Vesper
(229 posts)Sorry, but I don't know who you that you get to dictate what anyone may say. You chose to go off onto many abusive tangents exposing some dark impulses behind your anger here.
Nope, I have a valid point in pointing out the barbarity of ANYONE who chooses to slice off nerve tissue from a young child's genitals, i'm literally comparing apples to apples here.
I think any doctor that does this is engaging in criminal behavior, and any parent that allows this are also accessories to a crime, YOU can't deal with the application of the logic of your argument, since it's not just dusky people from foreign lands with a slightly different religion than your own, YOU wish to say that it's not GENITAL MUTILATION that's the problem, since you're arguing in favor of THAT barbaric crime, YOU are the one who made it all about how totally civilized it is when pale people in America do what this woman did to a little girl, as long as it's to a boy. It is pathetic deflection from some ugly things that were said on the basis of race, religion and one's own delusions of superiority.
Anyone defending the mutilation of ANY child is despicable and people who keep doubling down on that defense with racism, even more pathetic.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I have doctors at the Mayo clinic backing me up. You have nothing but bullshit.
Vesper
(229 posts)oddly enough you don't provide the back up where Mayo doctors or any others state that mutilating children is the wonderful thing you believe it to be.
Racist bullshit is not backed up by the Mayo Clinic or any medical organization, if you had bothered to do any homework, that would not be such a difficult fact to accept.
I guess when the argument is that mutilating children is great when white people do it in 'Murica, bullshit is really all a drama queen can produce. It's sick but hey, people like this doctor and those who make the arguments made is the most dramatic fashion by the only drama queen present, have to excuse their despicable worldviews the best they can, and if bullshit is what it takes, it's provided with a backhoe isn't it?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)link I provided. There are obvious medical reasons for male circumcision. That YOU don't agree is meaningless. I'll take the word of those who have 20 years of higher education in the medical field. Your "white" person nonsense is just that- nonsense. This practice goes back 3500 years. I'm done with this stupidity.
manicraven
(901 posts)Both might seem like mutilation, but only one is majorly disfiguring.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I volunteer in a clinic. I have encountered with not one, but TWO older males that developed penile cancer and had to have their penises amputated because of it. They were not circumcised.
Partners of uncircumcised males are more likely to get cervical cancer (the HPV infections are also more likely to cause penile cancer in the men later):
http://www.circinfo.net/cervical_cancer_in_female_partners_of_uncircumcised_men.html
The rate of precancerous lesions seen during screening is, moreover, rising. In New South Wales, Australia they have increased by 32% over a 10 year period, with 8 in 1000 having a high-grade lesion in 2005. This increase coincides with a rise in uncircumcised males in the sexually-active population.
Maybe the HPV vax will change this trend, and maybe it won't. It's too soon to tell, but male circumcision is now recommended in much of Africa because it is quite protective against HIV infection. WHO on the topic:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
I have known women who had their sons circumcised because of recurrent urinary infections, which did solve the problem:
http://www.aafp.org/afp/1998/0515/p2440.html
Male circumcision reduced infection incidence for not just HPV but Herpes, from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases:
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/male-circumcision-reduces-risk-genital-herpes-hpv-infection-not-syphilis
I am not claiming that males should be circumcised, just refuting your ascientific claims with very authoritative resources.
For a less boringly statistical take on the matter:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/
...
Additionally, the data suggests there is a racial disparity driven primarily by access to procedure and cultural and educational factors. Circumcision rates over the last decade reached 91 percent in white men, 76 percent in black men and only 44 percent in Hispanic men.
I linked the last because it has data on the differential circumcision rates in the US. This is relevant because we do have differential ethnic rates of HIV in heterosexual subcommunities, and these correlate astonishingly well with low circumcision rates.
obamanut2012
(26,142 posts)
Vesper
(229 posts)Seriously what kind of sick people think genital mutilation is okay in some circumstances but not others? That's some fucking privilege right there.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)to male circumcision. The benefits are so significant that it has become a social justice issue in the US, given that not all poorer families were offered the option through insurance. But there are compelling medical reasons why every parent should have this option for their male children:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/
Crunchy Frog
(26,646 posts)without something so invasive and potentially risky as surgery in a newborn.
I'm also quite mystified at the fact that there is no system in place for tracking complications, so that they have no real way of making a valid comparison between the risks and potential benefits.
Another thing that I wonder about, is why there has not been any research into possible benefits to other types of surgery that could be done on newborns quickly, easily, and relatively safely. Why not remove the male breast buds for example? They serve no purpose, and male breast cancer is both more prevalent and more deadly than penile cancer in developed countries, even ones where they don't circumcise.
Cultural and social biases shape the basic parameters of the research; the questions that are asked and not asked, the data that's considered relevant, and the data that's ignored.
Most of the developed world suffers from the terrible social injustice of circumcision not being paid for unless it is genuinely needed to treat an actual medical condition.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)I HATE that comparison, and shame on anyone who clings to it.
Forgive me for posting TMI, but careful long term study reveals that my apparatus remains fully functional despite the ghastly and unconscionable trauma apparently inflicted upon me as a newborn.
However, if my penis had been ripped off of my body in the manner of female genital mutilation, then this functionality would be cruelly denied to me.
There is no equivalence.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)circumcisms are done in hospital and mutilating girls are done in secret. That's all one really needs to know.
Vesper
(229 posts)The only time it's medically necessary is when the foreskin is too tight, every male does not have this issue.
Mutilating of little boys in the open and in hospitals does not make it any less barbaric.
obamanut2012
(26,142 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)obviously disagree with you. There ARE medical reasons - plenty of studies point to the cleanliness issue and in third world countries, that's an especially medical reason for it. Like I said, start your own thread and try and find some likeminded souls. All you're doing here is trying to deflect from what was done to THIS 7 year old in the name of her religion (really her parent's religion). Your motives for that I can only speculate.
Crunchy Frog
(26,646 posts)By gentle stretching of the tissue, and/or use of a steroid cream.
A large number of older boys in our country are unnecessarily circumcised because so many doctors are simply unaware that the foreskins of young boys are supposed to be tight, and they tend to turn to surgery as a first rather than last resort.
As a mother of intact sons, I've had to educate myself to the fact that the risk of genital mutilation doesn't disappear when you leave the hospital nursery.
But some, curiously, have invested heavily in this false comparison, and one can't help noticing the offensive inaccuracy of it.
It couldn't be an effort to grossly overstate the boy's suffering while trivializing the horror inflicted upon girls, could it?
demmiblue
(36,893 posts)Women (and men) are sexual creatures, but somehow discussing this one aspect of FGM is 'sick'. As if it is dirty and women don't deserve fulfillment in that aspect of life.
Y'all have pretty much schooled that poster on everything else.
Vesper
(229 posts)Ever think that it's just a natural reaction to a factual evaluation of mutilating the genitals of small children who do not consent?
It's a horror either say, the science backs that up, but the racial and cultural bias that defends this common practice in the US and attacks the same thing in other cultures is irrational.
It's emotional and it's not backed up by common sense or biology. The bias blinds people to what it is, and the attacks on anyone saying at cutting children's genital tissue off for cultural reasons is a bad thing period is mystifying, but I guess that's how irrationality works.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)when in fact the entirety of your argument depends on a misrepsentation of fact.
As such, your argument can be dismissed in its entirety.
Further, your desperate insistence that your opponents are motivated by emotionalism is rather pointedly sexist.
That is fact. Either you are innocently ignorant of this fact, or else you are deliberately denying it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I think the poster has it right one is accepted socially and one is not. Neither has any basis in an actual health benefit and both are genital mutilation.
You could certainly argue that one has a more profound impact on the sex life of the recipient but that does not make either less barbaric.
Societal bias is strong in this instance. We have accepted male genital mutilation as normal in our society despite all evidence that there is no medical benefit and in fact it can be detrimental.
Niether should be performed and saying so does not make Female genital mutilation any less horrifying.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)Whether or not both practices are barbaric is subject to debate and far from settled. You can't simply declare male circumcision "mutiliation" by fiat; it is an accepted and approved medical practice that you do not support, and it can be medically justified in numerous ways that actual genital mutilation cannot be.
My friend cut the very tip of his thumb off on a deli slicer. By the poster's analogy, that is equivalent to someone hacking off my friend's entire arm.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)It's like saying herpes is no big deal cause cancer is worse. Both are horrible. It is not a contest.
Feel free to link to the many medical benefits of male circumcision.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)The poster clearly equates male circumcision to female genital mutilation. This comparison is false, and--since his entire argument depends upon that false equivalence--his entire argument can be dismissed. He explicitly and deliberately overstates the negative consequence of circumcision at the expense of trivializing female genital mutilation.
Obviously it's not a contest--no one has claimed otherwise. If you're pursuing that as a point of argument, it's a straw man.
Your counter-comparison to herpes and cancer is also inaccurate. We can probably agree that widespread medical consensus considers herpes is non-favorable condition, while cancer likewise is not a favorable condition. If we apply your analogy to the poster's argument, he's equating the severity of herpes to the severity of cancer.
If you're aware of the medical benefits of herpes, I invite you to share them.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)there are no medical benefits of male circumcism. From the Mayo Clinic:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. However, the AAP doesn't recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. The AAP leaves the circumcision decision up to parents — and supports use of anesthetics for infants who have the procedure.
Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:
Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.
Circumcision might not be an option if certain blood-clotting disorders are present. In addition, circumcision might not be appropriate for premature babies who still require medical care in the hospital nursery.
Circumcision doesn't affect fertility, nor is circumcision generally thought to enhance or detract from sexual pleasure for men or their partners.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585
Now go find an article from any respected medical school or journal that makes a case for female mutilation. We'll wait.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Might have benefits.
And again it is not a contest to see which is worse.
Vesper
(229 posts)as long as orgasms are possible, that mutilating children's genitals is acceptable. How is that not the most shameful thing to be advocating?
Honestly, how would you know what it would feel like if your nerve tissue wasn't removed?
The procedure is the same, your prepuce was ripped off your body in the manner of any genital mutilation and you would know no different and like that doctor and the mother of these girls, you might also offer the same testimony you do now.
There is literal equivalence, it's just not what you wish it is.
Mutilating children is barbaric, and any position otherwise is shameful.
demmiblue
(36,893 posts)
Vesper
(229 posts)comparisons based on social conditioning. Nope, it never fails.
I don't understand why it's provoking such animosity to say that cutting children's genitals is wrong in general, without regard to orgasms.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)is nothing but misogynist bullshit. Period. I'm so sorry you're still suffering from the removal of your foreskin but that's hardly all female mutilation does. It makes urination and childbirth painful and makes enjoying in the act of sex non-existent and often also painful. Just stop digging.
Vesper
(229 posts)I'm in no way a misogynist and I'm using facts.
I'm female and I'm sorry that you were mutilated and that your nerve endings were removed from you when you were too young to protest, just like these little girls were, but hey let's continue being emotional, insulting and wrong because it's hard to acknowledge that what was done to you was WRONG.
So you're suggesting that it would not be misogynistic bullshit to cut a little girls genitals if enough erectile tissue was left? How the hell would anyone know if urination would be painful, or any comparison of subjective pain in childbirth? That's a lot of horseshit.
Just stop digging yourself, you're literally making foolish arguments and falling back on personal attacks on me based on ridiculous assumptions while ignoring facts to defend genital mutilation is patently ridiculous.
When you find yourself saying that orgasms determine if mutilation a child is wrong, and have to make up things which literally cannot be known, such as comparative pain sensation in CHILDBIRTH and urination in mutilated women versus unmutilated women, you have no argument to make, continuing to deny your own bias while attacking and trying to insult me for saying GENITAL MUTILATION IS WRONG, is just ridiculous.
obamanut2012
(26,142 posts)Or, at the VERY least, 2/3 of the penis.
Not fooling anyone with your false equivalencies.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)but a great window into societal bias.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It makes those things painful because of the scarring from the butchery done. There are books and studies done to validate what I'm telling you here. I suggest you read some of them so you'll know what the fuck you're talking about.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)Aristus
(66,462 posts)The clitoris constitutes the majority of a female's erectile tissue, and contributes largely to the process of orgasm in women. The prepuce, or foreskin, on a male, has scant erectile properties. And its removal results in no negative sexual sensations.
A procedure for males equivalent to FGM would be removal of the glans, or head, of the penis.
I was circumcised as an infant, and don't regret it at all.
Please do not spread misinformation here. Or anywhere, really...
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)keep making is that my point is somehow invalid because of orgasms. That's really pretty sick.
It's not about erectile tissue, it's about the mutilation of a small child, THAT was my point. The bias and the emotional overreactions here speak to the inherent bias Americans have because they routinely mutilate little boys at birth in sterile conditions, while the routine in these cultures (and it's so fucking wrong no matter who is doing it, where they're doing it, or to which gender, regardless of orgasm potential), is to wait til girls are older.
If it's a 7 year old boy being cut against his will, is it somehow less barbaric as long as erectile function is maintained? How messed up is that.
You had the same choice these little girls did, and it's just not okay because you don't "regret" what you never had a say in and what you do not even know you're missing. There are women who live in cultures where this happens who say the exact same thing you do. It's the WOMEN who are carrying on this tradition after all.
I'm not spreading misinformation, I was pointing out that genital mutilation is wrong, period. So please stop spreading misinformation yourself, I'm sorry you were mutilated as an infant, but what was done to you was wrong and barbaric as well, even if you don't know the difference.
Please stop defending genital mutilation of any child, not here or anywhere else. Acknowledge your bias and realize it is the same thing the mothers of these girls and that doctor share, they don't regret what happened to them either, and they're continuing on the tradition of mutilating children, and this should and must be called out EVERYWHERE. Regardless of orgasms, which is a pretty shitty thing to be excusing mutilation over, as if it would be okay to just remove a portion of clitoris, leaving erectile tissue and that would make it all right, that's the argument here, and it's sick.
The clitoris is more than just the hood and just the tip that is visible externally, so the analogies you've made is not anatomically accurate. I realize that these are deeply held religious and social things especially when they hit close to home. It's easy to criticize others while ignoring the same behavior in your own culture, especially when it's been done to you, but calling out the barbarity of cutting children's genitals for religious and cultural purposes is wrong and must be done.
Please stop spreading misinformation yourself, her and everywhere and join me in calling out the barbarity of such actions no matter what gender of the child or the religion or culture in question.
Aristus
(66,462 posts)with an eye toward genitourinary hygiene, especially with regard to STD's.
There is no religion on the planet, certainly not Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, that textually mandates FGM as a rite of passage. Or a rite of anything else, either.
The two are not the same.
The goal is to eradicate FGM everywhere in the world.
That's the prize.
Don't take your eyes off it.
Vesper
(229 posts)Genitourinary hygiene does not require cutting children, the STD thing is again not applicable to children, especially very young ones.
There is no religion on the planet, even beyond those three, in which two actively mutilate children and base that on various texts. They have texts for all sorts of stuff, and rites are part of the culture, not necessarily based on whatever version of whatever text that anyone might be referencing, and I'd like to point out that there are many of these.
The two are the same. The goal SHOULD be to eradicate ALL genital mutilation everywhere in the world, THAT is the actual prize, safe children. Do not take your eyes off it, these are children we're talking about and mutilation of their genitalia, plenty of books into those religions that require rites and other things to be done to children based on whatever the particular author or group has decided, how about we not let ancient sadists decide what the goal for our species is, and make the smart, compassionate decision to safeguard all of our children?
Let's not take our eyes off of that, okay?
obamanut2012
(26,142 posts)without male circumcision being brought up -- not the same thing at all. Not based in male hating. Start your own damned thread.
liberalhistorian
(20,819 posts)I knew it wouldn't be long before someone started in with this. Look, I agree that circumcision shouldn't happen, no matter what the cultural or religious "reason". I chose not to have my son circumcised and now, as a mid-twenty-something, he's amazed that he's the only man his age who's uncircumcised and that is upsetting. But is in NO way at all similar to female genital mutilation, period. No contest.
Vesper
(229 posts)It is actually the same procedure as genital mutilation on females, it's just the histologically analogous tissue in males, performed at a younger age.
That's it.
i wasn't trying to compare the two, the latter is more disturbing to me if only because of the reasons they do it, and the way they do it in other countries.
Putting into a hospital setting as this woman did, doesn't make it any better and it find appalling that people think that if sexual function is preserved to some degree that makes it somehow less an atrocity.
I don't see why people keep making it into a context, other than the cultural bias in the US, and the vague notion that if it's a doctor performing it in a clinical setting and the trauma is not recalled, that it's okay.
That's kind of what literally happened here, and it's still repugnant. Americans may not understand why they're the same medically and histologically since there is some sort of bias that if the person doing something is wearing scrubs and a face mask in a professional manner, that it's somehow fine. That's not how we should be looking at things, and we need acknowledge the bias here.
It should NOT be controversial to say that mutilating small children is a bad thing and no one should be going into discussions about how the degree of sexual function is what matters here, or the racism that seeps out with the condemnation that people should as one poster put it, "stay in their own country if they want to practice this barbarism" but that barbaric procedure is good because he had it, he's fine, and it happened in a HOSPITAL.
It's insane.
demmiblue
(36,893 posts)Nope.
Slicing off nerve rich genital tissue for the purpose of religious and cultural beliefs on unwilling children.
The same procedure. They're both horrific, why bother trying to compare two heinous things when you're wrong on the science?
demmiblue
(36,893 posts)Vesper
(229 posts)Please stop defending genital mutilation with these arguments that lack logic, intelligence or facts.
Response to demmiblue (Reply #90)
Post removed
JudyM
(29,279 posts)You decide.
I am stunned by your failure to understand basic anatomy.
Crunchy Frog
(26,646 posts)of the different types of FGC, I would rather have the mildest form of FGC, common in Indonesia and Malaysia, which is a nick in the clitoral hood, than be a boy and have my entire prepuce cut off.
There are plenty of adult women in this country who choose to have labioplasty, or get genital piercings; both officially classified as "mutilation" when done on underage girls.
JudyM
(29,279 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Vesper
(229 posts)and utter insanity, some racism and some tantrums that would embarass a child ensued.
Pretty weird camps that seem to be pro-genital mutilation.
Whatever though, one cannot reason with the irrational.
I haven't really posted much and usually ignore the shit, given the sheer number of people who responded to reasoned posts with "OMG your post count is so LOW" you'd think there might have been some restraint.
People really are this ridiculous about defending genital mutilation? WTF?
Nevermind, I've reached my tolerance for stupid several hours ago on this topic.
Crunchy Frog
(26,646 posts)I myself have used it on a couple of dozen Bernie threads in the past week.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Go through these "doctors" records and arrest the parents of any child who was mutilated and take their children away. If the law doesn't come down HARD on this, it will continue and that is unacceptable. You want to live here? Leave your barbaric rituals behind. 7 years old. Sickening.
They are just as culpable as the doctors, if not more so.
Vesper
(229 posts)Since mutilating little girls is against the law here and no the openly accepted and celebrated procedure it is in boys, she, a probable victim herself, didn't keep records or charge supposedly. She was blinded by her own bias, with her own cultural and religious norms and what happened to her, which she probably thinks didn't affect her at all.
The law needs to come down hard on barbaric rituals period, regardess of age or sex.
And there is that racist/religionist bias that I was talking about. Living here, only barbaric mutilation of little boys is welcome, when it's infants and orgasms can happen it's cool to you.
It's sickening all around. The attacks and the defense of barbaric rituals is also sickening. Gotta love the double standards that blind bias and ill concealed racism allows.
She is a doctor, she did it in a sterile clinic, according to you, if she left enough erectile tissue for orgasm, and the child was an infant and not 7, that's somehow not a barbaric ritual. SMH.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)under 200 posts and THIS is what you choose to make stand on? Pretty telling. Forget that she can't enjoy sex since that doesn't seem important to you - because of the scarring from this BUTCHERY, urination, sex and childbirth are horribly painful and often leads to hemorrhage.
obamanut2012
(26,142 posts) Vesper
(229 posts)I'm sorry you don't agree. Yeah it's pretty telling what one chooses to make one's stand on.
Like defending genital mutilation because it happened to them, and they're fine, and it was done by a DOCTOR in a HOSPITAL, just like it was done here.
It's very telling that the "they should stay in their barbaric country" crap is the stand one takes on this as well.
Forget that I'm not the one obsessed with the orgasms of the victims of child mutilation and I am not the one who thinks that if a victim has orgasms and the mutilation somehow is not mutilation.
It doesn't seem important to you that I'm taking a stronger stand than you are on child mutilation since you're defending it AND attacking me, repeatedly for stating that it's reprehensible PERIOD.
These conditions are present even in women who do suffer this abuse, and it's and boys who undergo it ALSO have issues, but it's pretty telling that it doesn't seem important to you, since *some* butchery is fine, as long as it's good old American butchery.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Perhaps you also missed the part that this barbarity also makes urination, sex and childbirth horribly painful due to the scarring and can also lead to hemorrhage. It's in no way equivalent to what males have done. And spare me your "American butchery" nonsense. Male circumcism has been around for thousands of years.
Vesper
(229 posts)Or was that just a warning the body of the message contained more of that drama queen bullshit from the only person whose engaged in it.
Perhaps you missed the part where cutting ANY tissue off of ANY child's genitals is barbarous?
Sorry, but I don't know why you think defending mutilating boys when the facts are arrayed against you here, is something so worthy of your devotion.
Spare me you cultural ignorance, butchery is butchery, and girls and boys have been butchered for the same time period, it's just the cultural norm in America, so spare me the ignorance and the racism.
Okay, I'm done, there comes a point when trying to argue with someone who willfully denies reality and facts and defends butchery of children as being "natural" since people have been butchering children's genitals for thousands of years, is just pointless.
I'm tired of the ignorant racism, the drama queen bullshit, the abuse and the utter nastiness of defending mutilation of children, except when it's done by some foreign other.
It's these double standards, this willful ignorance and the underlying racism that propelled Trump to a win, and it's shocking to see it seeping out here but there is no more pretending that ignorant, racist hate and blind jingoism is something that the right had a monopoly on.
Good bye.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I already posted the link to the Mayo clinic on why so many doctors favor circumcision. When you find a legitimate medical source that does the same for fgm, then we'll talk. Talk about willful ignorance. I have no idea what you're talking about with racism and misogyny and frankly, I don't give a damn.
Vesper
(229 posts)I thought was a Trumpkin thing.
The pro-genital mutilation stance is nasty one.
I'm not defending mutilation, YOU are. I don't really want to talk to people who think mutilating children is a good thing. Indeed willful ignorance is all talk I've seen from the many many posts, thanks for admitting it.
I've already explained it several times, but one cannot force someone choosing to be willfully ignorant to learn against their will. Seems like all these post devoid of facts and full of pure BS and defense of mutilation show that you do give a damn about your pro-mutilation position.
Try to "not give a damn" by avoiding the reply button.
Bye now.
demmiblue
(36,893 posts) Vesper
(229 posts)biology someday and learn why mutilating children is wrong period.
The maturity in this debate is eye opening, it's sad that so many people simply cannot see beyond their bias and their ignorance to see why mutilating children is bad.
demmiblue
(36,893 posts)Go elsewhere with your equivocating of FSM with male circumcision.
Vesper
(229 posts)scientifically or culturally well versed opinion, hence the maturity level of the discourse.
Please take your own advice with your defense of mutilating children, the dedication to defending a truly sick practice and the determination to deliberately twist my position, might be amusing, if it wasn't being done in service of such a despicable topic.
You have a good day now, I hope that someday that profound ignorance will be corrected.
demmiblue
(36,893 posts)didn't even read it.
Vesper
(229 posts)Not reading is how you've found yourself blindly ranting on in favor of genital mutilation, I'd suggest you try a different course.
The sheer ignorance and the dramatic nature of immature pro-mutilation folks is truly sad.
demmiblue
(36,893 posts)because you made it all up in your mind.
FGM is not the same as male circumcision.
Vesper
(229 posts)I've explained how the biology proves you to be incorrect and why CHILD mutilation is wrong. I'm sorry you disagree and that you feel the need to lob personal attacks because you lost a debate on facts.
Genital mutilation is genital mutilation even if mutilating one gender is how one's own people choose to practice it. Slicing off nerve tissue from helpless children is something that's bad.
It's a strange hill to die on, but whatever floats your boat I guess.
Weren't you going somewhere, Felicia?
demmiblue
(36,893 posts)
ExciteBike66
(2,374 posts)Even if this doc didn't keep records, other docs who subsequently examine the girls affected can certainly tip off the cops if they suspect a crime was committed, right? I mean, if a doc sees welts on a kid they can call the cops.
Vesper
(229 posts)But that's such a vague way to try to id victims. Hope for some complaint, and for that to be picked up by a mandatory reporter (teacher, school nurse that sort of person), hope the parent has not said anything to the child to make them afraid of complaining, hope that they're not going to doctors within their own community, who would not report. Just because they aren't willing to do the procedure themselves, it doesn't mean that they would or could report. Their personal feelings aside, there would be the community and family backlash.
I don't think they generally do a genital exam unless there was an actual problem, especially not on a 7 year old.
It's a matter of luck. Unfortunately for these girls, it was too late for them and all those who came before them. If they can figure out how to identify these networks, and work with their communities to educate them on the dangers of mutilation, hopefully they can have an effect.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)Seeing some parents rot in prison for child abuse wouldn't hurt those "communities" either.
treestar
(82,383 posts)May be done in the country they came from, but illegal here.
Though it is now illegal in some of the countries, but tough to enforce there. But here, no. This is maiming and assault under our laws.
bullwinkle428
(20,630 posts)get the red out
(13,468 posts)Would charges be filed against a non-religious parent who had their child seriously abused, cut up, hurt, harmed forever?
Mariana
(14,861 posts)We can only hope, for the girls' sake, that it was something like a "ritual nick" that won't cause permanent damage.
The investigation is still going on. The parents will likely be charged when it is done.
Mosby
(16,358 posts)So her labia minora probably was trimmed and then stitched almost shut, leaving an opening so the little girl could pee but with her clitoral hood and vagina closed from the stitches.
WoonTars
(694 posts)....especially to happen here in the US? Are you kidding me?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)child.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)We put many children through pain for good reason. This is pain and mutilation to appease sick religious leaders who have worked to turn their flock into sick fucks. Didn't happen overnight.
Laffy Kat
(16,386 posts)The father said he didn't know "what would come of it" but did that mean he didn't know the point of the procedure or he didn't know there would be so much trouble? I don't understand. What did the parents think was going to happen to their daughters? The children should be removed from the home after that abuse.