Female genital mutilation should be legal in its mildest forms

Alternative Title: "We're just gonna cut ya up a little bit, Sweetie. Relax. Here, have a lolly."

CBC readies the national psyche for Justin and Gerald's 50 thousand a year or bust movement of Hijra Here.

Un-f*cking-believable.


And it damn well better stay that way.

Male genital mutilation is already legal in its mildest forms.




: I know... them's fighting words.

And yet male genital cutting is deemed A OK.

Male circumcision is where it's always been. Where it is already is the end point and it's been here with few problems for thousands of years.

Female genital mutilation at it's end point is a horror. Male circumcision is not equivalent.

What's being proposed is already available and yet little girls are still being mutilated and traumatized.

Male circumcision is not the same thing, because you don't have to pretend you're regulating anything to go there. It's already there. All that's being proposed now for girls is theatre to pretend it's the same thing. We'll simply pretend we don't see what will still be done in the same hidden places.

Sure it is. Messing around with the genitals for no reason. Ban both, no exceptions. You want it, wait until you're an adult. Fuck cultural sensitivity.

No. They are not the same thing. If you say they are you don't understand the facts or are refusing to acknowledge them.

What the CBC is pretending is possible would be the same thing. Now let's see you talk the savages into it. Yes, if they cutting of clitoris's and endangering their daughter's lives to stifle sexual urges to make them acceptable as brides to men they are savages.

No, that is not what male circumcision does.

People say it's not the same thing... what makes it different? Male genital mutilation/circumcision you are cutting off the piece that provides the most sexual pleasure any different from committing genital mutilation on girls that results in the same effect.

With Andy on this, ban both.

I'd love to see a poll of circumcised men versus women that have gone the full FGM.

Which group would be satisfied with the results?

Not being circumcised can also become a health issue. I've personally seen examples of idiot parents who don't/won't clean it for their kids too young to it for themselves and it was a fucking mess.
My neighbour came over one day freaking out because her son's penis was badly infected and looked like it was growing a peach. When I asked her if she was cleaning it properly she said she couldn't do it. Like really? So how the hell is the kid supposed to learn if no one is showing him how?
Circumcision is almost a necessity when it comes to moron parents.
FGM is a barbaric practice because women aren't supposed to enjoy sex apparently.

I'm going to guess if you're saying that you're an uncircumcised male who might have read a flawed study one time.

http://www.livescience.com/27769-does-c ... asure.html

Also you don't seem to understand there are different types of Female genital mutilation.



The closest to male circumcision would be Type I above. The prepuce (hood skin of the clitoris) is removed.

The problems begin after that. In Type II the clitoris is removed. A male equivalent from a sexual pleasure aspect would be more like having your whole penis removed.

In type III they slice and dice clitoris, Labia minora and majora - inner lips and outer folds, then they sew up the opening leaving only enough room to pee or allow menstrual release.

Show me how type 2 or 3 is equivalent to Male circumcision.

Show us how type one is so different, which is what the docs are arguing for. In fact removing a "nun's hood" is done in the west to increase female sexual pleasure. You want to argue for male circumcision, then you should be consistent and argue for stage one for females too.

But fuck that, ban both.

Apparently there's even a type 4. It's ugly - horrific even.

Then there's consequences or harmful effects. They dwarf anything you'll see in male circumcision.

http://www.path.org/files/FGM-The-Facts.htm

Male circumcision and anything past type 1a FMG are not the same thing.

Yes. Type one might seem pretty close to what male circumcision is.

Even so, as I told you from the beginning - before you tried to lay a total false equivalency out there - FMG doesn't stop there.

The mothers could be satisfied with Type 1 right now if they wanted to be. What happens when they don't? What happens when their culture says "Sorry you're gonna need the upgrade to type 2 through 4?"

All the CBC is doing is trying to sell a fantasy to those who won't read the whole thing that Type I is where they can make it stop.