MGM is NOT like FGM in the LEAST

[Joseph]

http://www.viceland.com/int/v14n9/ht...php?country=ca

NOT AT ALL.



{mod says: Indeed, they're different because females are protected by law (if not by enforcement) on 94% of the planet.}

[cloud7]

yeah, the only thing worse then being circumcised would be having everybody you know watch as it's being done.

such a barbaric ritual, and these kids are brainwashed to think it needs done

[z726]

Speaking of brainwashing, did you notice all the distractions and efforts to make the boys feel good about it? The text and photos tell about gifts, coins, fancy costumes, circus clowns, playgrounds, circus clowns, etc. They know damn well that the boys are unwilling and that it's painful. No wonder the Jews started doing it to infants - it's much easier for them not to care how a baby feels.

And you would think it's done with safety in mind, as parts of Turkey seem to be industrialized enough to have decent medical care. Apparently not:

The “circumcision experts” who are called to perform the ritual instead of medical personnel often inherit their position from their fathers. As a result, the official literature is filled with reports of vomit-inducing botched procedures, some of which end with severed urethras, infections, gangrene, amputation of the penis, and even death.

And here I thought this was rare outside of certain African tribes.

[Joseph]

The submitted haiku "Legacy" comes to mind...

Legacy
By C J Lewis

Circumcision Rite.
Music, dance, and food, and drink.
Blood and pain remain.

[cloud7]

not trying to bash certain religions but the idea of the mohel performing metzitzah b'peh or orally sucking blood from the wound is quite disturbing.

http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/03/th...private-parts/

[finman]

Sorry, I missed the point. Why is MGM not like FGM?

[Joseph]

BECAUSE,

You see, it's just not. You shouldn't ever compare them. The foreskin is not even PART of the penis, so I don't know where people get that idea that cutting it off is genital mutilation.

The VERY idea.

[finman]

You are right in one way - after some child abusing mutilator has hacked off the foreskin it is no longer part of the penis, but it was and to deny that it was ever part of the penis is like denying that the foot is a part of the lower limb.

Some forms of FGM have similarities with MGM in that the hood of the clitoris is removed, while other forms are even more radical, damaging, horrendous and inexcusable.

[Joseph]

See, we can sit around compare the similarities and dissimilarities of MGM and FGM all day long.

At the end of the day though, forceful mutilation of genitals is forceful mutilation of genitals.

Infibulation is probably THE worst kind of FGM possible. It doesn't mean that everything else underneath that is "better," does it? No one dare say "well, the cutting off of labia and/or the clitoral hood should be OK because HEY! At least it isn't infibulation..."

So maybe circumcision isn't exactly like some forms of FGM where they excise the clitoris. Maybe excision of the clitoris is more comparable to full penis amputation.

I'm still not sure how it is people can make circumcision more morally acceptable "because female circumcision is worse."

These two things?



Look exactly the same to me.

I don't know why this:



Is any different.

I can't see how ANY of it is "excusable."

[Regener8]

man i wish i didnt see those.

sonsabitches!