2979
2980

Parents in the UK who allow female genital mutilation will be prosecuted (theguardian.com)

submitted by Slyndrr

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Liquidmetal7 94 ポイント95 ポイント

So in 2014 we need to say no to people who mutilate others for no reason? It still happens and we where doing nothing?

[–]phycologist 100 ポイント101 ポイント

So in 2014 we need to say no to people who mutilate others for no reason? It still happens and we where doing nothing?

Genital mutilation still happens to young boys too and we're doing nothing.

[–]LiquidSpark 32 ポイント33 ポイント

Welp. I hope you're ready for the flood of angry idiots who claim male mutilation isn't as bad as female mutilation. Some other clown will also chime in with a bs study about how getting mutilated is actually BETTER for boys. Have fun.

[–]Order_and_Regulation 54 ポイント55 ポイント

Clown chiming in.

It's not as bad as the female mutilation and it has its pros and cons. I'm against it however.

[–]artacuno53 19 ポイント20 ポイント

What are the pros?

The only real one is cleanliness, and given the fact I shower daily that one doesnt fucking matter.

[–]patternfall 49 ポイント50 ポイント

Lower risk of contracting some STDs.

edit: The downvoting of this simple fact is a great example of the emotional response this topic generates. I'm not even advocating, but apparently anything supporting the other side must be buried.

CDC Source

Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs , penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.

For female partners, male circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer, genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and HPV. Although male circumcision has risks including pain, bleeding, and infection, more serious complications are rare.

edit 2: Okay, I was at -3 when I made the first edit. Point still stands, though. People let their emotions guide their feelings on this.

[–]SirSoliloquy 38 ポイント39 ポイント

The worst part about how any female circumcision thread turns into a male circumcision thread is that it really minimizes the harm caused by female circumcision.

Male circumcision removes skin. Perhaps it's a bad thing (depending on whether or not you decide the medical/hygene reasons are good justification for doing it to children), but it's not nearly as bad as removing the entire clitoris.

It's not an equivalent issue! Stop downplaying the actual harm that's going on! This is like people going into a thread about a man being assaulted for being gay and saying "how come no one's talking about how people are calling straight people 'filthy cishets?'"

[–]ZhanchiMan 27 ポイント28 ポイント

We're not downplaying female circumcision. We already agree that it's horrible. We're arguing over whether or not male circumcision should be left for the parents or their child to decide to have it happen.

You are downplaying male circumcision as if it doesn't matter.

[–]UNITA_Spokesperson -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Because if we could stick to the fucking subject that is presented in the article, people may realise that FGM was never, ever practiced in the UK until certain types of immigrants started arriving en masse.

[–]thethiefofsouls 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The subject is the mutilation of children. Maybe you should stop being over sensitive and racist.

[–]Jayrate 10 ポイント11 ポイント

How about while we're talking about legislating bans on snipping pieces of genitalia off of babies, we solve the issue for both genders?

[–]conquer69 14 ポイント15 ポイント

Male circumcision removes skin. Perhaps it's a bad thing

Stop downplaying the actual harm that's going on!

Oh boy, the irony.

[–]Xerkule 19 ポイント20 ポイント

You're the one downplaying harm.

[–][deleted]

[deleted]

    [–]FuggleyBrew 5 ポイント6 ポイント

    Its as bad as losing the clitoral hood which is included in the ban. Are you advocating that we remove that part of the ban and allow it to be forced on girls?

    [–]Xerkule 5 ポイント6 ポイント

    Never said it was. People complaining about male genital mutilation are not diminishing the harm of FGM - they're just saying MGM is more harmful than people think. It's your preconception about the harm of MGM that makes you think the comparison is diminishing FGM.

    [–]cismalefeminist 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    The foreskin contains the majority of erotogenic nerve endings (~20,000) which make sex pleasurable; frenulum and head contain far fewer. Men who are circumcised later on in life report a decrease in sensitivity and are more likely to have difficulty achieving orgasms.

    Removing the foreskin would be the FGM equivalent of removing the clitoral hood. The male equivalent of full FGM would be to cut off the whole top of the penis (foreskin, frenulum and head).

    [–]Carlos13th 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    No one said it was, they just said that MGM is a bad thing too. Something else can be considered bad without being considered as bad.

    You are downplaying MGM because FGM is worse we shouldnt be downplaying either of them.

    [–]KaleStrider 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Some male circumcision actually removes the same skin associated with the clitoris so... Yeah...

    [–]cismalefeminist 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    Male circumcision removes skin.

    Not entirely correct. The foreskin contains the majority of the erotogenic nerve endings which make sex pleasurable. Men who are circumcised later on in life report a decrease in sensitivity, almost like a numbing effect. Circumcised men continue to loose sensitivity leading to orgasm difficulties. The foreskin is more than just skin.

    FGM is definitely far worse. Spreading misinformation about male circumcision isn't helping either.

    [–]Nascar_is_better 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    No it doesn't. Everyone already knows female circumcision is bad. There are already laws banning it. Male circumcision however, is still perfectly legal and the norm in some parts of the world, due to people like you who think it's OK because it's "less bad".

    [–]Kazan 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Male circumcision removes skin

    your ignorance is offensive.

    Its not just skin. The foreskin and frenulum (the latter almost always being destroyed as well) contain the majority of the erogenous nerves of the human penis.

    as for the rest of your post... http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/2beh4v/parents_in_the_uk_who_allow_female_genital/cj57vpv

    PS: circumcision doesn't improve hygiene if you FUCKING SHOWER.

    [–]Notbadyou -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    I agree. Comparing the two in terms of infancy abuse is a valid point, though circumcision vs. FGM as an adult is a comical comparison. I think this is a miscommunication many people are having on this thread.

    [–]wwoodi 17 ポイント18 ポイント

    That study that you are referring is such shit. It was based in Africa and wasn't even done properly.

    I can even prove easily that it doesn't do shit by pointing out that America has some of the highest STD and HIV rates in the industrial world even though America has the highest circumcision rates.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate

    The problem is that Americans are worried that women wont like natural willies so they will keep cutting them off because it's more important to fit in and make money instead of not mutilating children.

    [–]SirSoliloquy -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

    Ah yes, the Center for Disease Control: such a horrible source for medical information.

    I mean, it's not like the horrid state of sexual education or the way the U.S. treats recreational drug use could have anything to do with the HIV rate.

    Best to just ignore the CDC's information and decide that your own view of the world must be correct.

    [–]FuggleyBrew 10 ポイント11 ポイント

    When one medical institution stands alone among its peers and uses bad research to justify it? Yes they are a bad source.

    Even large organizations can be wrong.

    [–]scrote_inspector 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    one medical institution stands alone among its peers

    Here are some rather prominent peers that agree with the CDC. World Health Organization, Johns Hopkins, American Academy of Pediatrics.

    [–]cismalefeminist 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    From the CDC page on male circumcision and HIV/AIDS:

    Male Circumcision and Male-to-Female Transmission of HIV

    Studies of whether circumcision of males reduces HIV transmission to their female sex partners overall indicate no protective effect.

    A RCT of male circumcision in Uganda found no evidence of reduced HIV transmission to female partners. In the study, 922 HIV-infected men with uninfected partners were assigned to either immediate or delayed circumcision. Overall, 18% of women in the intervention group (partners in the immediate circumcision group) acquired HIV during follow-up, compared with 12% of women assigned to the control group (partners in the delayed circumcision group). There was no difference in HIV incidence between the circumcised and control groups when the couples waited to resume sex until the wound had healed, which in 93% of male subjects was within 6 weeks of circumcision.20 However, women appeared to be at somewhat higher risk for HIV acquisition when the couples resumed sex before the circumcision wounds had healed, although this difference was not statistically significant.

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of male circumcision and risk of transmission to women identified 19 studies from 11 populations.21 The meta-analysis of data from the one RCT and six longitudinal analyses showed little evidence that male circumcision directly affects the risk of transmitting HIV to women (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.53-1.36).

    tl;dr circumcision will not protect you, wear a damn condom.

    [–]patternfall 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    You realize that that's male-to-female transmission, and not the other way around? The slight protective edge is for circumcised men, not the women they have sex with.

    [–]iamaom 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Lower risk of contracting some STDs.

    Or you could just use a condom. By the way, the "benefits" of circumcision don't add on to the condom, they're just nullified.

    [–]Nascar_is_better 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    STDs is a poor argument for circumcision. Wearing condoms is much more effective, and if prevention of STDs trumps personal choice and rights, why don't we fucking cut off the whole thing then? there would be zero likelihood of getting any diseases.

    [–]patternfall 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    prevention of STDs trumps personal choice and rights

    I never said this. I'm not taking a side, I'm just providing information.

    Again, showing how emotionally irrational people get on this topic.

    [–]cismalefeminist 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    From the very CDC link which you posted:

    Male Circumcision and Male-to-Female Transmission of HIV

    Studies of whether circumcision of males reduces HIV transmission to their female sex partners overall indicate no protective effect.

    ....

    A systematic review and meta-analysis of male circumcision and risk of transmission to women identified 19 studies from 11 populations.21 The meta-analysis of data from the one RCT and six longitudinal analyses showed little evidence that male circumcision directly affects the risk of transmitting HIV to women (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.53-1.36).

    Circumcised men might have a slightly lower risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, but that risk isn't 0% and you are still putting women at risk. Condoms are 99.9999% effective at preventing transmission of STIs and babies.

    [–]Riversz 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Condoms are about 85% effective when it comes to preventing HIV transmission, although the CDC claims only 80%. Not defending male circumcision here, but it's better to have your facts straight when discussing these matters.

    [–]patternfall 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Facts are overrated. Write with your heart.

    [–]Kazan 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    You know what is far more effective than destroying 2/3rds of the erogenous nerves of the human penis at preventing all of that?

    condoms.

    [–]patternfall 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    That's completely true, but it doesn't discount anything I said...

    [–]Kazan 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    All the HIV studies also come out of africa and are such low quality i'm shocked the CDC is actually repeating what they said. They routinely contaminate the experiment groups by giving them condoms and teaching them how to use them.

    Also removal of the labia minora would likely have a similar effect on females.. would you be here defending that practice?

    [–]patternfall 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    I'm not defending anything. The guy wanted to know a pro. I gave him one.

    Saying something positive about an issue isn't the same as advocating for its practice. The fact that you conflate those concepts again goes to show how emotional and defensive people get about this. A discussion is impossible because opposing information is marginalized or dismissed and the person is accused of bias.

    [–]artacuno53 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Well I didnt plan on having sex with any unclean partners.

    I do have a question, does it work with gay males? Im bi and I have a little brother who is gay (and I assume circumsised since I am)

    Also how does that work? It seems weird and I dont understand how it works to prevent stds

    So I guess is it a pro, yes, is it a pro for me? Not unless the girls lying I guess.

    I would still prefer a uncircumcised penis and not have my body dysmorphia.

    Downvotes? Lol whatd I say? I asked for the science on how it worked and then mentioned how I dont like being cut.

    [–]Drop_ 3 ポイント4 ポイント

    There has been quite a bit of criticisms of the 3 studies that "displayed" that circumcision can reduce infection rates by "60%." Most prominently, that neither study was actually completed, and that the intervention group would naturally have less sex in the period post circumcision, while the control group would have no reason to abstain. There were some other issues, as well, but I can't find the publication.

    Also note that the preventative effect was extremely small.in HIV infection rate was extremely low in both groups in the studies, and the absolute difference IIRC was less than 1% reduction, but the relative reduction was ~60% between the 3 studies.

    There is no understanding of a mechanism as to why it would have a preventative effect.

    [–]traveltrousers -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/07/how-11-new-york-city-babies-contracted-herpes-through-circumcision/

    [–]RaceHard -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

    You know what's more effective? A condom. Common sense, and not fucking whores.

    [–]rakust 1 ポイント2 ポイント

    you can have a handy snack at the end of the day

    [–]artacuno53 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    .....

    [–]jimmyscrackncorn -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

    Well I'm glad my penis doesn't hide inside my body like a dog's does. Plus it helps that my dick doesn't look like an anteater.

    [–]Kazan 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    That's special, you should have had the right to chose to have it done as an adult - and we should have had the right to not chose.

    Why are you going around being offensive and insulting to people who are just trying to draw attention to medical truths and requesting everyone's rights - yours and mine - be respected?

    [–]jimmyscrackncorn -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    Lol 2013, taking my comment srsly

    [–]-TheMAXX- -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

    Nope. Foreskin helps keep things clean.

    [–]Jayrate -1 ポイント0 ポイント

    There are no "pros" to cutting a baby without asking it.

    [–]scrote_inspector 6 ポイント7 ポイント

    I'm pretty confident that the World Health Organization, Johns Hopkins, and the American Academy of Pediatrics aren't basing their positions on circumcision on "bs" studies. None of them go so far as to recommend universal circumcision, but they do agree that there is conclusive evidence of health benefits of the procedure.

    [–]tard-baby -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    Calling my dick "mutilated" is fucking ridiculous. It was a medical necessity for phimosis. And somehow I'm a disfigured victim. You people are retards. In FGM, they remove the whole clitoris. http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/Clitoris_anatomy_labeled-en.jpg. Male circumcision removes some useless skin, improves hygiene, reduces chances of STIs, looks better, and makes you last longer in bed.

    [–]throwaway50000000001 28 ポイント29 ポイント

    Several counter-points:

    • It's only mutilation when it's healthy tissue. If it needs to be excised like yours was, it's fine.

    • It's not useless skin. Yours may have been scarred by phimosis or removed when you were too young to know its benefits. It's highly innervated and quite a pleasure to own, let me assure you.

    • The looking better part is debatable - there's a side-by-side image somewhere (I can't find it right now) comparing an uncircumcised adult glans with a circumcised one (with foreskin retracted). I would not enjoy having the dried-out, circumcised one.

    • I have not seen a clitoridectomy myself - you say they remove the entire thing - I can't imagine them removing the crura. Do you mean they just remove the hood/glans?

    • Improved hygiene might be might be dependent upon the patient's prior poor level of hygiene. Not sure how much it would improve in patients with good hygiene practices. I will have to check the literature.

    • As for the decreased STI rates, I haven't read the studies so I'm not in a position to comment.

    [–]AGONY_AUNT_PM 9 ポイント10 ポイント

    I agree wuth everything you said, except for the part about thw clitorectomy. There are different types of FGM, some of them involve only pricking or scraping some part of the genitals, while others remove the clitoral hood, the entire clitoris, the labia minora, the labia majora, and different combinations of these. So, someone might have "only" a clitorectomy (the male equivalent would be having your entire penis removed) while another person may have had all of their external genitals removed.

    I don't agree with either FGM or circumcision, but must we make all FGM discussions about men and their problems?

    [–]TheNoblePlacerias 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    We're... not? there are other comment threads with no mention of male circumcision in this post.

    [–]Colander767 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    My penis will never be dried out. I use too much lotion for that.

    [–]ZhanchiMan 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Jokes aside, I don't think the head is really prone to drying out anyway. It's covered up most of the time when we are out and about. The condensation produced naturally probably keeps it from developing dry skin.

    [–]throwaway50000000001 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    I am far too tired to go searching again, but there is an image with a circumcised and non-circumcised glans side-by-side. I think I saw it posted on reddit as well... It's worth looking for. The difference is amazing.

    [–]p1ckmatt -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    Exactly! And you know what? Where would I have a place to let my dick cheese to mature until I can wipe it on crackers for a tasty treat or dip my pretzels in it.

    [–]p1ckmatt -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

    oh yeah and heres a link for research

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

    [–]superfluid 12 ポイント13 ポイント

    I have never heard of anyone condemning circumcision as a medical necessity. Doing it just for religion, cultural or to match daddy, is the issue. It' is not useless skin otherwise you wouldn't have it. If a foreskin is impacting your hygiene you're just a disgusting perso; most people wash their penises. Also if I want to avoid STD's use a condom or don't have sex with sketchy people. LOL last longer in bed? You might last longer in bed but that's because you've effectively dulled any sensation you may feel.

    It's like people advocating lopping off a baby's fingers at the first joint because finger nails can harbour bacteria. Honestly the justification people come up with boggles the mind. You can do whatever you want to your own body, just don't impose it on someone else (particularly one who has no say in the matter).

    [–]ZhanchiMan 3 ポイント4 ポイント

    The "match daddy" issue is extremely stupid in my opinion. You are putting a child through unnecessary surgery for fucking cosmetic reasons.

    Hopefully if I have a son, I will jump through hoops to keep him from being cut.

    [–]superfluid 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Out of curiousity, where you live, do you actually have to jump through hoops to prevent that from being performed? I would have that the the default would be not to do it unless the parents request it. If I had a kid and they hospital circumcised them without having consulted with me I would would be apoplectic with rage.

    [–]ZhanchiMan 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    As far as I know, the doctors will only ask if you want to have it done, to which my response will be a firm and brusque "No."

    The only thing I worry about is the wife I may have, which I don't know what I'll be putting up with.

    If nothing is gonna stop her from doing that to my son and I get a question about it later, the blame is 100% on her.

    [–]superfluid 0 ポイント1 ポイント

    Best to settle that issue well in advance I guess. Having to have that discussion at the 11th hour is probably going to lead to conflict and stress :\

    [–]cismalefeminist 2 ポイント3 ポイント

    Are you aware that phimosis is almost always treatable by manual stretching or steroid creams? I am sorry but your penis has been mutilated. The foreskin contains the majority of the erotogenic nerve endings and is definitely not "useless skin". Men who are circumcised later on in life report a decrease in sensitivity. The foreskin helps keep the glans/frenulum protected and from drying out. Circumcised men also are more likely to report problems achieving orgasm.

    There are almost no scientifically proven benefits to male circumcision. The argument that it reduces risk of STIs has been debunked thoroughly; only one paper claimed this and has never been reproduced. Hygiene is also debatable, since it's just as easy to clean a uncircumcised penis as a circumcised one.

    and makes you last longer in bed.

    Going to need a source for this. While circumcision does reduce sensitivity, that does not mean you automatically last longer. There are more factors to reaching orgasm (ex: muscle tension and breathing) than sensitivity alone.

    FGM is definitely far worse though.

    [–]Roast_Jenkem -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    Looks better? Are you simple or just a child? It's been thrown in your face your whole life (I'm assuming you're an American) so you think it's normal. Imagine showing your dried out, scarred up wang to some isolated tribe of people that have never heard of circumcision.

    [–]LordNoah -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

    Agreed it's better to not have that extra foreskin people who call it mutilation are fucking hippies.

    [–]Veeron -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    Just a disclaimer for anyone reading this who has phimosis.

    Phimosis can be completely fixed in almost all cases by doing stretching exercizes regularly. Circumcision is only a necessity in exceptional cases.

    [–]F0sh -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

    Oh, right, because as soon as a blade touches the human body it's mutilation and therefore equivalent? No, there are degrees and some bad things are worse than others. I don't think any circumcised man would volunteer to undergo the analogous procedure that is meant when the term FGM is used - that is having half or all of his penis removed.

    I don't think anyone who actually knows what female genital mutilation means can espouse the opinion you do.

    [–]phycologist -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

    true