What the fuck are you even talking about?
This has made me so angry. Female 'circumcision' doesn't involve taking your baby into a nice clean hospital and having a bit of them chopped off, it involves forcibly pinning down a young girl often in unsanitary conditions with no after care, chopping bits of her off including the clitoris then sewing her up to leave a tiny hole so her future husband has the pleasure of tearing her open again.
Male circumcision is nothing to do with this.
(Popiella Jones, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 14:02, 2 replies)

well... actually
Female circumcision is carried out in hospitals in some parts of the world, and male circumcision is carried out in 'unsanitary' conditions. The vast majority of both happen forcibly to minors.
What the original post is trying to do is make clear the parallels between the two practices, what the above post does is to say that although the two are different, they are relevantly similar in the way they might be objectionable.
So, yes you might well say that chopping off bits of girls genitals is in some ways worse, but both are bad in that they interfere with the integrity of someone's body and are carried out without consent. (I acknowledge that some men and some women voluntarily have their bits of their genitals chopped off)
( Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 14:39, closed)

thanks for proving my point popiella, ntm missing the main one.
So would it be okay with you if FGM were done in a sanitary hospital or is it the chopping off bits of a nonconsensual child that is the ugly bottom line?

Oh and yeah. Sanitary. Sterile.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6898403/


I never thought my cherry pop post would be so controversial tbh.
(Matty73, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 14:47, closed)

Neither is right
My point is that they just have absolutely piss all to do with each other, its like saying chicken is better than cement. I am against circumcision (mostly because it looks funny, its not fair to the baby and guys have said it must be so painful it being constantly exposed like that) but that is completely incomparable to female genital mutilation.
Also if you want to find horror stories, David Reimer might be a better bet than some mad rabbi.
(Popiella Jones, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 18:46, closed)

Oh, come on, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, do you? You're even loading your opinion into the choice of words. Circumcision is male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation is female circumcision. Using the nastier sounding term just for the female one does not help you.

They are both an assault on a child that causes permanent damage, it's just one is acceptable in our society and one is not. They are very much the same thing. Saying that you're against lopping off part of a child's body for no reason because it wouldn't look as nice is, frankly, disgusting.

And chicken is better than cement, you dumb bint.
( Ungersven would support SpankyHanky's patreon, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 21:24, closed)

I don't like to rollerskate on chicken =(
(St Sepulchre's Belle tolled for thee on, Mon 4 Jan 2010, 8:20, closed)

bollocks they are incomparable, they are both outdated pieces of religiously inspired genital barbarity aimed at making sex or masturbation too painful to be done for fun.

IS FGM more invasive than MGM? yes, i never said any different, now did i?

Other than that you have totally proven my point that some women make light of mutilating little boys cocks whilst getting a case of the vapours at even the mention of FGM. Thanks for that.
(Matty73, Sun 3 Jan 2010, 21:44, closed)