How Do You Decide


I recently got in a rather heated discussion with a nurse. 

The argument, after I compared female and male circumcision, declined to this:
"A direct comparison was made between male circumcision and female genital mutilation. The two acts were conflated. Female mutilation is a purposeless and barbaric act performed by evil men who comit this atrocity to keep women as second-class citizens.

The only conclusion that can be drawn when a direct relationship is made between female mutilation and male circumcision is that they are equally atrocious.

And if the two acts are the same (remember, they were directly compared), someone who sees a benefit to male circumcision is by definition just as evil as someone who supports female genital mutilation. If female mutilation and male circumcision are truly exactly the same, then anyone who favors either act must be an equally repugnant person." - Nursing Student

Obviously, she is horrified at the idea of female circumcision but very much in favor of male circumcision.

Which leads me to this post. I'll make it short and sweet...

Which child is protected by current law to have part of their genitalia cut off? Which child is protected by current law to have their genitalia preserved?

Which child's parents would be considered barbaric by the majority of the population if they circumcised the child? Which child's parents would be offered the option before leaving the hospital because it is culturally accepted?

Which child's parents have a right to decide if they should have a healthy part of their body excised? Which child's body is less deserving of their natural state?

Which child's genitalia is more likely to be permanently altered because of religion, cultural acceptance, aesthetic appearance, or 'health reasons'?

You and I both know the answers to these questions. I would encourage you to take a look at the chart that I created below. Feel free to share at will, just give a link back or reference me as a source.

It is amazing what we can justify when it fits our personal paradigms and wants/desires.


Anonymous said...

I am sorry but you are an ignorant. Please do some more research before write something which appears intelligent. Your work is biased and you are writing about something which you may not have experienced, so you don’t know what it is about.
This is the problem for all human being. we try to impose our thoughts on others or we copy others. Male circumcision has some benefit but female circumcision does NOT and it is a cruel practice. I think it started by females as competition since women like to do whatever men do.
I am sure you are writing from a country where almost all girls under 15 is sexually experienced and have some form of STDs which you can not prevent but sure you can stick your dirty nose on other countries business.

Nicole D said...

Hi Anon! Nice hiding ;-)

Also, btw, nice pot-shot, "sticking your dirty nose on other countries business"... that's very kind and 'unbiased' of you.

actually, all of the information that I wrote is backed by medical and historical research. I linked all of that information and sites where you can get more information ON it if you are interested in researching it more.

This post appears intelligent because it IS. :) You have failed to give ANY information or research to back your claim, but I welcome it so we can have an intellectual and adult-like debate (with no name calling or pot shots, please).

You said 'I think it started by females as competition since women like to do whatever men do.'... interesting idea/concept, but wrong. Female circ is just as old a practice as male circ and was never started by women... it was established by men to do it TO women.

Again, I welcome a healthy debate, but give some facts, not just your opinion of me and my post. :)

Dan Bollinger said...

All humans have the inalienable right to be secure in their own bodies. Their gender, race and nationality is inconsequential to this right as is their parent's religion and culture.

kaliha brooks said...

I'm sorry but I agree with th first person. your chances of getting hpv from an uncircumsized man are greater. Men have a hard enough time keeping themselves clean as it is without having to was extra parts. An as a child the cleanliness would soley fall on mom and dad or infection will take place. Circumcision marked the covenant between God and mankind he didn't say go cut the clits off all of your women he said removed the foreskin which is dirty unclean and holds bacteria and odor from all males bought and born in your household. This would be proof of my covenant with you. If you wanna circumsize your daughter that's on you but don't try to explain it to others just so you can feel better about your decision making. A clits are there for stimulation when with our husbands why would you want to deny someone that pleasure. I know a woman from egypt who was circumsized and she is not happy about it. So pick and choose a battle worth fighting because this is not one of them.

kaliha brooks said...

I just looked at pictures from such procedures and they look brutal and unclean. Why would you want to subject your daughter to that. I hope you've removed your clit first. It would make no since for such a discussion if you still own one.

Nicole D said...

Kaliha - well, with that argument, someone should definitely cut off the folds of a young girls labia if they are bigger because it isn't as CLEAN and easy to clean as one who has smaller labia 8-/

No man ever stood in a shower and said 'I wish I didn't have my foreskin, it's so DIFFICULT to retract my skin and clean it!'. Also, early in life, a boy's prepuce doesn't even retract from the head of the glans, so there is no need to do anything more to clean it. It isn't until he is older (10-18) that his prepuce disadheres to his head.

And finally, you are only partially right regarding the covenant with God. The circumcision that WE all know about now is considered periah. God only required the milah. Milah is the way it SHOULD be done if you want it done for what the Bible requires. This is a much less invasive (but no less painful) circumcision. For information on that, take a look here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04318.html . The torah only requires the milah, the TALMUD talks about the milah, periah and metzizah being all required only after the cultural shifts and olympic events tempted Jewish men to 'hide' their milah from the community. The periah was an addition by MAN, not God.

Jonathan Bing said...

I dont get it...everyone says "less chance of getting aids" or other diseases. Well, of course there is less chance but its no reason to circumcise. Circumcision means the glans thickens as its always rubbing against something (underwear etc), making it less likely to break or get minute tears during intercourse that allow the transfer of virus.

But in the same way you could say that removing the clitoral hood thus causing the clitoris to rub against underwear and thicken could reduce the chance of transferring disease through minute tears in the clitoris itself. So you could argue health advantages there too.

Either way, you could just choose as an adult how to have safe sex and how to ensure that you are prepared for those risks if the man/woman you choose to be with for the rest of your life - your risking transferring other fluids with them anyway.

Point is, its thin for a reason, so its more sensitive and pleasurable. And theres a reason why you dont just sleep with anyone because they may have some STD.

If you cut off your entire penis then theres even less chance of getting STDs - doesnt mean its the right thing to do and doenst make it a justifiable 'health' reason.

Just my thoughts anyway.

Nicole D said...

I agree Jonathan Bing, what a great point you have made! :)

Unknown said...

Anon, you are making no sense. Somehow this topic is offensive to you I think, and you don't want to be more informed.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Total Pageviews