I think one of the things that we far too often overlook in this country is that fact that genital mutilation of newborn boys is common practice, if not standard. Why isn't there more of a cry against this? Do the benefits of circumcision (if any, and I don't see any valid argument that there are any) outweigh the cost and mutilation of a boy?

Of course circumcision isn't the only genital mutilation in the world, but it's the only type in practice in the United States. Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so. Americans, and Europeans in general, ban female genital mutilation of babies, but why the hypocrisy in not doing the same for males?

Views: 3635

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Please don't compare the worst FGMs to the most benign MGMs. Both are carried out with a wide variety of severity. Many of cases the WHO calls FGM involve only astringents. Many only slit the hood. Even a pin-prick to draw one ceremonial drop of blood is NOW illegal for 94% of the world's population of females with no religious exemption. No country protects males.

Please don't suggest that non-consensual removal of tissue from my healthy genitals that included over half the sensual pleasure-receptive nerve endings I would ever have and which would have grown to over 15 square inches of exquisite sexual interface was not mutilation.

Do you know the foreskin is exactly homologous to the clitoral hood and labia minora? They are the same tissue until 3 months gestation.

I sympathise that your masturbation/sex sessions might have been a bit more "exquisite" had you not been cut. I agree that your parents shouldn't have done it to you or to any of you. I get that you are, correctly, angry that FGM is a crime and MGM isn't. However, the degree to which you are (therefore?) seeking to trivialise the impact of FGM is getting........well, weird actually.
There is no culture cutting girls that does not also cut boys. There are tons of places where cutting girls is illegal and cutting boys is done in public ceremonies. I'd too would be delighted for equal status.
When I used to be a refugee lawyer, one of my client, who suffered gential mulitation, fleed her african country to save her 2 daughters from having to get mutilated because her family was putting more and more pressure on her to get it done. Before the refugee Board members, my client told the story on how she was tied to a tree while her mother and other women from her village, use a piece of glass to cut her clitoris, she was 8 years old. Unfortunalty the board members did not accept my argument, that women fleeing crountry where genital mutilation is encouraged, have no safe heven where they can get protection and therefore , qualified for protection under the Refugee Convention as they face persecution because of their "Membership to social group", but I never forgot the horror that this women went thru, this trauma does not compare to the pactice of circumsicion performed in the safety of an hospital, there is not ,much discussion ot have here.
That's horrible that woman couldn't get refugee status! Did she have to go back to her country of origin?
Obviously, FGM is a horrific human rights abuse that DOES warrant refugee status. I don't know how long ago this woman was cut, but it may have already been illegal in her country, which could infuence the board. The case then becomes one of proving that the law is never enforced.

Such boards have to tread a fine line. Since genital mutilation is so widespread, they acknowledge the damage at the risk of opening the flood gates for hundreds of thousands of male and female refugees.

The AAP and AMA are in the same boat. If they take their heads out of the send and act rationally to defend the human rights of boys in the USA, they build a case for negligence and malice lawsuits against their own membership. But a law which shields the doctors who have been cutting boys from liability would also be a disaster for the victims.

It's really intractable. You can't get a lawmaker to sponsor a bill to prohibit MGM as long as there is a US medical association claiming amputation of healthy body parts is a parents' rights issue, and you can't get the medical association to change that inhumane stance as long as the membership is exposed to liability if they admit a mistake.

Presently, the only state with an actual MGM law proceeding through the legislature is Massachusetts. On March 2nd there will be a public hearing to see if the law makes it out of committee. http://mgmbill.org/hearing.htm

This Massachusetts case is unlkely to go anywhere because they are one of the states with no specific FGM law. If they had one, they would just need to strike out the gender references and bring the law into compliance with the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. The law that is proposed WOULD protect healthy males, females, and intersex persons from non-therapeutic genital cutting, but Massachusetts can do nothing without looking monstrous because FGM is already prohibited at the federal level (and who gives a hoot about males and intersex persons, right?).
Thank you for your inclusion of intersex persons in this topic. It seems that few come to the defense of these human beings who are born with ambiguous genitalia and are surgically modified when they have no choice in the matter, often to their life-long detriment. The purpose seems to be to make them "fit in" to a society that has obsessions with genitalia in general, and to hell with worring about making them miserable. It seems to me that the Massachusetts law could, as you say, remove gender references.
It is not an obsession with genitalia, but an obsession with fitting a dichotomy. >.X
Well not an obsession genitalia per se, better said an obsession with ignoring genitalia... ignore washing them, ignore playing with them, ignore sharing them... an obsession nonetheless.
The Anti-Male circ bill is dead in water because of one or more of the following

1. The circumcised and indoctrinated physical status of men in power to defeat the legislation

2. The hospital associations which make considerable money from circumcising as many male infants as they can get clearance for. The cost can be as much a 450 to 800 dollars per procedure. Medicaide pays usually less than 100 dollars , but a backward state like West Virginia, pays 300 and more.

3. If this bill ever passed it would cause men to feel they had been violated. That is a frightful thought for most.

4. Jews and Moslems would scream their lungs out and despite what you may hear many doctors trump up the benefits and even write books. They are usually Jews.
Example Edgar Shoen a mohel and AAP member, his procirc crusade has to be driven by far more than science or logic

Also, now deceased Physician Arron Fink, who spend his entire retirement research the alleged medical benefits of routine circumcision and fighting Marilyn Milos of NOCIRC.
No we were able to get her to stay based on humanitarian grounds, but it took a while.
CircInfo is a fetish site. Much less credible than Wikipedia.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service