Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofle
As stated before, removing the foreskin also reduces sexual pleasure (and can decreases penis size). Again, this is not to equate the two. FGM's roots are more related to the intentional discouragement and reduction of sexual pleasure, whereas circumcision probably doesn't stem from the same subjugation. But it is a side effect that the baby couldn't consent to.
If we are going to talk about definitions, I think it's fair to say that the practice of circumcision comfortably falls within the parameters set out under "mutilation". That doesn't change just because the procedure has a different label attached to it.
And I don't really care if you have a problem with MRA's, anti-feminists or whatever. The issue is about babies having part of their penis cut off for no morally legitimate reason.
|
I found an article a few months back. It mentioned that in Africa males who were circumcised had a lower rate of contracting contracting HIV/getting AIDS. That should be the "morally legitimate reason" you are looking for. I don't considered it "mutilation" because the way male circumcisions are performed nothing else is damaged. The glan is not destroyed, removed, or sliced which is what happens to clitoris and other part with FGM.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.
|
"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards